The Journal of Sex Research

ISSN: 0022-4499 (Print) 1559-8519 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hjsr20

Microaggressions Toward Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual,

Transgender, Queer, and Genderqueer People: A
Review of the Literature

Kevin L. Nadal, Chassitty N. Whitman, Lindsey S. Davis, Tanya Erazo & Kristin
C. Davidoff

To cite this article: Kevin L. Nadal, Chassitty N. Whitman, Lindsey S. Davis, Tanya Erazo & Kristin
C. Davidoff (2016) Microaggressions Toward Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and
Genderqueer People: A Review of the Literature, The Journal of Sex Research, 53:4-5, 488-508,
DOI: 10.1080/00224499.2016.1142495

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2016.1142495

Published online: 11 Mar 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 4609

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 53 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hjsr20
THE JOURNAL OF SEX RESEARCH, 53(4-5), 488–508, 2016
Copyright © The Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality
ISSN: 0022-4499 print/1559-8519 online
DOI: 10.1080/00224499.2016.1142495

ANNUAL REVIEW OF SEX RESEARCH SPECIAL ISSUE

Microaggressions Toward Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender,

Queer, and Genderqueer People: A Review of the Literature
Kevin L. Nadal, Chassitty N. Whitman, Lindsey S. Davis, Tanya Erazo, and Kristin C. Davidoff
John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York

Microaggressions are subtle forms of discrimination, often unconscious or unintentional, that com-
municate hostile or derogatory messages, particularly to and about members of historically margin-
alized social groups. While Sue’s (2010a, 2010b) microaggression theory formed its foundation in
studies based on racial microaggressions, the following review summarizes microaggression literature
to date, as it pertains to the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and genderqueer (LGBTQ)
people. Searching PsycINFO and other databases between 2010 and 2015, we found 35 peer-reviewed
papers or dissertations that concentrate on the negative impact microaggressions have on LGBTQ
people. A comprehensive overview of the experiences of individual LGBTQ subgroups (e.g., lesbian
women, gay men, bisexual people, transgender people, and genderqueer people) is included, as well as
microaggressions based on intersectional identities (e.g., experiences of LGBTQ people of color). The
significance of this review is that it is the only known article to comprehensively analyze the literature
on LGBTQ people and microaggressions, examining the strengths and weaknesses of past literature
while encouraging future areas of theory, research, and practice.

Because of the changing political and social climate of the
United States, many scholars have described how racial discri-
mination may be much less overt than in previous decades,
labeling such instances as aversive racism (Dovidio &
Gaertner, 2000); symbolic racism (Sears & Henry, 2003); and
modern racism (Poteat & Spanierman, 2012). Similar ideas have
been formulated and discussed regarding the pervasiveness of
subtle discrimination based on gender and sexual orientation,
including such concepts as modern sexism (Swim & Cohen,
1997); heterosexist harassment (Silverschanz, Cortina, Konik,
& Magley, 2007); modern heterosexism (Cowan, Heiple,
Marquez, Khatchadourian, & McNevin, 2005; Walls, 2008);
incivility (Woodford, Krentzman, & Gattis, 2012); and gender-
ism (Hill & Willoughby, 2005). Despite these many concep-
tualizations and models, the paradigm of microaggressions has
persisted across diverse fields and disciplines to describe
subtle, often unconscious forms of discrimination against his-
torically marginalized groups.
Microaggressions are behaviors and statements, often
unconscious or unintentional, that communicate hostile or
Correspondence should be addressed to Kevin L. Nadal, John Jay
College of Criminal Justice, Psychology Department, 524 West 59th
Street, New York, NY 10019. E-mail: knadal@jjay.cuny.edu
derogatory messages, particularly to members of targeted
social groups (e.g., people of color; lesbian, gay, bisexual,
transgender, queer, and genderqueer [LGBTQ] people;
women; stigmatized religious groups; Sue, 2010a, 2010b).
Because most people in contemporary times do not engage
in overtly hostile or consciously biased behavior toward
marginalized groups, some people believe they neither
hold biases against other groups nor participate in discrimi-
natory behavior; in fact, many individuals may report that
discrimination (e.g., racism, sexism, homophobia, transpho-
bia) no longer exists (Nadal, 2011). In contrast, research
demonstrates that people tend to uphold both explicit bias
(i.e., prejudice that is conscious and known) and implicit
bias (i.e., prejudice that is unconscious and unknown),
which affects the ways they perceive and interact with
others (Greenwald, Poehlman, Uhlmann, & Banaji, 2009;
Jost et al., 2009). For instance, one study that surveyed
2,000 heterosexual medical students found that while nearly
half of participants (47.8%) reported explicit biases toward
gay men and lesbian women, most of the sample (81.5%)
demonstrated implicit biases toward gay men and lesbians
(Burke et al., 2015). Thus, many individuals may unwit-
tingly perpetuate microaggressions, a process with a multi-
tude of potential negative implications.
 MICROAGGRESSIONS AND LGBTQ PEOPLE
Research suggests that microaggressions detrimentally
impact the mental health of members of marginalized social
groups, with studies correlating microaggressions with lower
levels of self-esteem (Nadal, Wong, Griffin, Davidoff, &
Sriken, 2014); higher prevalence of depressive symptoms
(Nadal, Griffin, Wong, Hamit, & Rasmus, 2014); lower levels
of psychological well-being (Nadal, Wong, Sriken, Griffin, &
Fujii-Doe, 2015; Solórzano, Ceja, & Yosso, 2000; Sue,
Capodilupo, & Holder, 2008); higher prevalence of binge
drinking (Blume, Lovato, Thyken, & Denny, 2012); and
higher negative emotional intensity (Wang, Leu, & Shoda,
2011). Given this, the use of the prefix micro- does not
describe the quality and impact of these offenses; rather,
micro- characterizes the subtle manner in which this type of
discrimination occurs, making microaggressions difficult to
detect, identify, and demonstrate (Sue, 2010b).
To date, most studies focusing on microaggressions have
examined perspectives of people of color, highlighting the
array of racial microaggressions and their negative impacts
on mental health within communities of color (Wong,
Derthick, David, Saw, & Okazaki, 2014). In addition, a grow-
ing body of research has emerged to examine microaggres-
sions toward women (Capodilupo et al., 2010; Owen, Tao, &
Rodolfa, 2010); people with disabilities (Denhart, 2008; Keller
& Galgay, 2010); people with mental illness (Gonzales,
Davidoff, Nadal, & Yanos, 2015); historically marginalized
religious/spiritual groups (Nadal, Griffin, et al., 2012); and
LGBTQ people (Bostwick & Hequembourg, 2014; Nadal,
Issa, et al., 2011; Nadal, Skolnik, & Wong, 2012; Nadal,
Wong, et al., 2011; Shelton & Delgado-Romero, 2013).
Microaggressions can be committed by a variety of perpetra-
tors; they may be transmitted via interactions with members of
dominant social groups (e.g., White people, men, heterosexual
people, cisgender people), from members of other margin-
alized groups (e.g., a gay man committing a microaggression
toward a transgender person), or from individuals with shared
marginalized identities (e.g., a lesbian committing a microag-
gression toward another lesbian). Microaggressive messages
spread through the media, teachers, supervisors, friends,
family, peers, and strangers (Sue, 2010b). Hence, opportunities
abound for microaggressions to occur, in their various mani-
festations from multiple sources.
This review summarizes existing literature focusing on
microaggressions toward LGBTQ people. We provide a
summary of microaggression theory, including a brief
history of the term microaggression and its working defi-
nition. We discuss taxonomies of themes of microaggres-
sions that target LGBTQ people, as well as existing
research on how microaggressions may affect various
LGBTQ subgroups (i.e., lesbian women, gay men, bisex-
ual individuals, transgender people, and genderqueer peo-
ple), as well as the various ways that LGBTQ people cope
with microaggressions. We also examine intersectional
microaggressions (i.e., subtle discrimination based on an
individual’s multiple identities), particularly for LGBTQ
people with multiple marginalized identities. Finally, we
encourage future areas of theory, research, and practice,
which we hope can further assist in understanding
LGBTQ people’s experiences with microaggressions,
while potentially finding ways to minimize microaggres-
sions in the future.
MICROAGGRESSION THEORY
Microaggression theory (Sue, 2010a, 2010b) is a model of
framing contemporary discrimination in the United States
and many other parts of the world. While the concept of
microaggressions was first introduced in the 1970s and
defined as “subtle, stunning, often automatic, and non-verbal
exchanges which are ‘put downs’” (Pierce, Carew, Pierce-
Gonzalez, & Willis, 1978, p. 66), the theory of microaggres-
sions emerged in a seminal article in American Psychologist
by Sue and colleagues (2007), who created a theoretical
taxonomy of racial microaggressions that target people of
color in the United States. Shortly thereafter, the theory was
expanded to include microaggression taxonomies focusing
on women (Nadal, 2010; Sue & Capodilupo, 2008), religious
minority groups (Nadal, Issa, Griffin, Hamit, & Lyons, 2010),
and LGBTQ people (Nadal, 2013; Nadal, Rivera, & Corpus,
2010). Microaggression theory has conceptual similarities
with minority stress theory (Meyer, 1995, 2003), which has
proposed, and empirically demonstrated, that individuals
with social identities that depart from societal norms (e.g.,
LGBTQ people, people of color) experience chronic daily
stress associated with maintaining their identities within con-
texts of social stigma. Microaggressions can be causally
related to minority stress, in that the cumulative experiences
with subtle forms of discrimination can result in psychologi-
cal distress and other mental health issues. Microaggression
theory also has similar tenets as concepts specific to LGBTQ
communities including sexual prejudice (Herek, 2000), anti-
gay harassment (Burn, Kadlec, & Rexer, 2005), and sexual
stigma (Herek, 2007). However, microaggressions are unique
from these constructs in two ways: (a) varying forms (or
levels) of microaggressions have been theorized and empiri-
cally supported, in ways that are distinctive from previous
constructs of discrimination; and (b) unique psychological
dilemmas are related to microaggressions that may not neces-
sarily be applied to other constructs of discrimination. Both
of these traits are discussed in this article.
The three primary forms in which microaggressions may
manifest are microassaults, microinsults, and microinvalida-
tions (Sue, 2010a, 2010b). While Sue et al. (2007) initially
described how these forms of microaggressions tend to
manifest in racial contexts, Nadal (2013) demonstrated
how LGBTQ people might experience these microaggres-
sions in different contexts. Microassaults include overt ver-
bal or nonverbal insults and behaviors. For LGBTQ people,
an example could be using heterosexist language (e.g., say-
ing “That’s so gay” to connote that something is bad or
weird; Nadal, 2013). The person who uses such language
may be aware of her or his language choice but not the
489
 NADAL, WHITMAN, DAVIS, ERAZO, AND DAVIDOFF
impact those words have on the LGBTQ people who hear
them. In fact, one study found that when people hear the
word gay used in negative connotations, their implicit biases
toward gay people may increase, suggesting that even words
with harmless intentions can potentially lead to new biases
and microaggressive behaviors (Nicolas & Skinner, 2012).
Microinsults are statements or actions that may slight or
demean a person’s marginalized identity. A microinsult
toward an LGBTQ person may include someone who
stereotypes that all lesbians are masculine or that all gay
men are feminine (e.g., making a joke that a gay man
couldn’t possibly like sports or commenting that a woman
is “too pretty to be a lesbian”). While comments like these
might not be meant to offend others, or are sometimes
guised as “jokes,” the messages that are conveyed can result
in an LGBTQ person feeling belittled, hurt, or stereotyped.
Last, microinvalidations “exclude, negate, or nullify the
psychological thoughts, feelings, or experiential reality” of
members of marginalized groups (Sue et al., 2007, p. 278).
One example may include instances in which LGBTQ peo-
ple are told that their perceptions of discrimination are
unfounded or nonsensical, negating the realities of hetero-
sexism or transphobia in their lives (Nadal, 2013).
Microaggression theorists also discuss the four psycholo-
gical dilemmas that arise from experiences with microaggres-
sions: (a) clash of realities, (b) invisibility of unintentional
bias, (c) perceived minimal harm of microaggressions, and
(d) the catch-22 of responding to microaggressions (Sue,
2010a, 2010b). These dilemmas are discussed in the para-
graphs that follow.
Clash of realities describes how individuals may interpret
certain microaggressions. Targets of microaggressions might
view such interactions as being related to the perpetrators’
biases or assumptions (often resulting in feelings of being
hurt, offended, or frustrated), while enactors of microaggres-
sions might view their own behavior as harmless, unremark-
able, or well intentioned. For instance, gender-nonconforming
(GNC) people who hear others refer to them by incorrect
pronouns might be aggravated that this type of experience
continually occurs, while cisgender people who commit such
microaggressions might view their behaviors as honest mis-
takes that are common or even accurate. Sometimes, micro-
aggression perpetrators may be able to rationalize their
behavior or language, defending their intentions and dismiss-
ing the targets’ perceptions. Despite these potential rationali-
zations, perpetrators’ implicit biases may result in
metacommunications that they may not even be aware of,
furthering the difficulty in understanding the target persons’
perspectives.
Invisibility of unintentional bias describes the notion that
most people are socialized to learn biases, due to systemic
oppression and the superiority of dominant groups. For
example, cisgender people may not even realize there are
no gender-neutral restrooms in certain public spaces because
they are socialized to believe that only two kinds of
restrooms, for men and for women, are needed.
490
The third psychological dilemma, perceived minimal
harm of microaggressions, involves the notion that many
people, particularly those of historically privileged groups,
may view microaggressions as being unimportant or
unworthy of discussion because the specific incidents are
innocuous and minor. However, targets of microaggressions
might actually experience these incidents often, leading to
an accumulation of microaggressions that research reports
negatively impacts mental health and psychological well-
being (Nadal, Griffin, et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2011).
The fourth psychological dilemma, catch-22 of respond-
ing to microaggressions, exemplifies the many reasons
why it is difficult to respond to microaggressions, includ-
ing the fact that (a) not all individuals will view the same
incident in the same way; (b) there may be several prac-
tical, physical or psychological repercussions for confront-
ing someone who commits microaggressions; and (c) an
individual who experiences a microaggression may not
have the energy, time, or mental energy to engage in
such conversations.
Finally, one unique element of microaggression theory is
that the number of studies measuring the concept of micro-
aggressions has grown exponentially in a short amount of
time. Wong and colleagues (2014) observed that the number
of studies on racial microaggressions was noticeably higher
than other related concepts (e.g., aversive racism) that have
been present in academic literature for two decades. To test
this observation, Wong and colleagues (2014) provided a
comprehensive review of racial microaggression articles that
were written from 2007 to 2012, following Sue et al.’s
(2007) seminal American Psychologist article. Finding a
total of 73 research articles through the databases PsycINFO,
PsycARTICLES, Behavioral Sciences Collection, and
ProQuest Dissertations, they examined three major areas: (a)
the definition and impact of racial microaggressions, (b) the
importance of studying microaggressions, and (c) the ways
researchers study microaggressions and how such methodolo-
gies might be improved. While the authors successfully
identified and critiqued the various studies on racial microag-
gressions, while also providing recommendations on how to
improve the scientific rigor of racial microaggression research,
they focused only on race, thus excluding other forms of
microaggressions. Accordingly, a comprehensive review of
microaggression studies focusing on gender, sexual orienta-
tion, gender identity, ability status, religion, and other identities
could further contribute significantly to microaggression
theory.
MICROAGGRESSION TAXONOMIES
Sue et al. (2007) first introduced a theoretical taxonomy
of themes of the types of microaggressions that people of
color may face in their lives, ranging from assumption of
criminality (i.e., instances in which people of color are
stereotyped to be dangerous, violent, or deviant) to alien
 MICROAGGRESSIONS AND LGBTQ PEOPLE
in one’s own land (i.e., statements in which Asian
Americans or Latina/os are presumed to be foreigners,
even when they were born and raised in the United
States). Sue and Capodilupo (2008) extended the microag-
gression taxonomy to include themes that primarily target
women and LGBTQ people. Use of sexist/heterosexist lan-
guage describes terms that insult, degrade, or exclude
women and LGBTQ people. Examples include someone
who may label a man who is disinterested in sports as a
“faggot” or “sissy,” or using words like tranny or he-she to
describe transgender people. The traditional gender-role
prejudicing and stereotyping theme references the assumed
roles or stereotypes people are pressured to propagate based
on dominant social norms. One way this might manifest is
by asking a lesbian couple “Who is the man in the relation-
ship?,” which perpetuates heteronormative stereotypes that
romantic relationships must include complementary mascu-
line/feminine personalities. Last, assumption of abnormality
refers to the implication that being LGBTQ is wrong or
strange; an example occurs when a gay couple holding
hands in public receives looks of disgust (or curiosity)
from strangers and passersby.
Nadal, Rivera, and Corpus (2010) discussed eight themes
of microaggressions purported to impact LGBTQ people:
1. Use of heterosexist or transphobic terminology
involves the use of language or slurs to put down
or denigrate LGBTQ persons, or use of words that
associate LGBTQ identities with something negative
(e.g., saying “No homo!,” which connotes that one
does not want to be perceived as gay; or intention-
ally or unintentionally calling transgender persons
by their incorrect gender pronouns).
2. Endorsement of heteronormative or gender-con-
forming culture/behaviors describes instances in
which LGBTQ individuals are expected to “act
straight” or hide their sexual orientation or gender
identity to conform to the dominant culture (e.g.,
expecting children to adhere to traditional gender
norms in terms of dress).
3. Assumption of universal LGBTQ experience
involves comments or behaviors that suggest
LGBTQ persons are a homogenous group and are
all the same (e.g., stereotyping all gay men as being
promiscuous or all lesbians as being “butch”).
4. Exoticization involves microaggressions where
LGBTQ people are fetishized or dehumanized
(e.g., assuming a bisexual woman would be inter-
ested in having sex with a heterosexual couple).
5. Discomfort/disapproval of the LGBTQ experience
captures situations in which non-LGBTQ people
condemn LGBTQ people (e.g., telling an LGBTQ
person that he or she is “going to hell”; receiving
looks of uneasiness when engaging in public dis-
plays of affection).
6. Denial of reality of heterosexism/transphobia occurs
when a heterosexual or cisgender person claims that
homophobia/transphobia does not exist (e.g., when a
transgender woman tells her friend that she experi-
enced a microaggression and her friend replies with
“It’s all in your head!” or “You’re being too
sensitive!”).
7. Assumption of sexual pathology/abnormality involves
presumptive attitudes about sexual deviance and risky
sexual behavior for LGBTQ people (e.g., supposing
that LGBTQ people are living with human immuno-
deficiency virus [HIV] or are sexual predators or child
molesters).
8. Denial of individual heterosexism/transphobia
occurs when someone denies that he or she did or
said something that was offensive or hurtful toward
LGBTQ people (e.g., someone becoming defensive
when a lesbian challenges him or her on sexist or
heterosexist behavior).
Similar to the previous taxonomies on racial and gender
microaggressions, these themes were later explored and
validated in a variety of studies (e.g., Nadal, Issa, et al.,
2011; Nadal, Skolnik, & Wong, 2012; Platt & Lenzen,
2013). Despite this, no known studies have comprehen-
sively reviewed all of the published studies on microaggres-
sions toward LGBTQ people.
METHODOLOGY
For the current study, our goal was to provide a compre-
hensive review of academic literature focusing on microag-
gressions toward LGBTQ people. To begin, we paired the
term microaggressions with various LGBTQ keywords
(e.g., bisexual, queer, transphobia, genderqueer) in various
search databases including PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES,
ERIC Education Database, and Health Source: Nursing/
Academic Edition. For clarification, the Appendix provides
definitions of each of the terms to familiarize readers with
the relevance of each term to LGBTQ communities and to
microaggression theory. Our search incorporated both
empirical articles and theoretical articles on sexual orienta-
tion and gender identity microaggressions, and we included
those articles in which the concept of microaggression was
the main focus of the article or was at least written about
extensively.
Searches yielded a variety of results, ranging from 35 to
43 entries when the term microaggressions was paired with
the terms lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender. In con-
trast, genderqueer, monosexism, and biphobia yielded no
results; homonegativity yielded two entries; gender noncon-
forming yielded three entries, and homophobia and trans-
phobia each yielded five entries. Next, we removed book
chapters, book reviews, and duplicate findings (e.g., articles
491
 NADAL, WHITMAN, DAVIS, ERAZO, AND DAVIDOFF
that were republished in other journals); we also removed
articles in which the term microaggression was used only
once, usually in an introduction or discussion section, or in
which microaggressions were not a main focus of the arti-
cle. From this, we yielded the following types of articles:
● Nine publications explicitly on sexual orientation
microaggressions (i.e., microaggressions toward les-
bian, gay, bisexual, and queer [LGBQ] people as an
umbrella group);
● Six publications written about the general LGBTQ
population and microaggressions;
● Five publications on transgender people and micro-
aggressions;
● Three publications on bisexual people and micro-
aggressions;
● Two publications on gay and bisexual men and micro-
aggressions;
● No publications explicitly on genderqueer or gender-
nonconforming people and microaggressions;
● One publication on children of LGBTQ parents and
microaggressions;
● One publication on heterosexual perpetrators of
microaggressions; and
● Four publications on LGBTQ or LGBQ people of
color and microaggressions.
In total, there were 29 articles on microaggressions and
the LGBTQ population (subtracting the four articles that
discussed intersections with race, which are counted in
other respective categories). The earliest of these articles
was published in 2011, shortly after the Nadal, Rivera, and
Corpus (2010) taxonomy was published. Almost all of these
articles focused on interpersonal microaggressions (i.e.,
microaggressions that occur between people), while some
mentioned systemic microaggressions (i.e., microaggres-
sions that occur from systems, institutions, or
environments).
Because these numbers were lower than we expected, we
decided to follow the example of Wong and colleagues
(2014) and search the ProQuest Dissertations and Theses
Global database with the term microaggression in the title
and the aforementioned LGBTQ terms as keywords. This
search resulted in six more studies, including four disserta-
tions on sexual orientation microaggressions, one disserta-
tion on microaggressions and African American lesbians,
and one dissertation on transgender and gender-noncon-
forming (TGNC) people’s experiences with microaggres-
sions. Hence, to our knowledge, 35 peer-reviewed articles
or dissertations were published on microaggressions and
LGBTQ people in the past five years.
Further, we decided to examine the same LGBTQ search
terms with perceived discrimination and subtle discrimina-
tion. In doing so, we discovered 10 research studies that
appeared to describe processes similar to the construct of
microaggressions (e.g., the discrimination was subtle or
492
unintentional;, the descriptions match the microaggression
themes from previous taxonomies; the target felt confused
or disturbed by the incident). Though the purpose of this
review is to explicitly highlight studies that focus on micro-
aggressions, we underscore a few of these studies because
they relate to microaggression theory and can be helpful for
conceptualizing future microaggression studies.
Finally, we acknowledge that we do not have an expli-
cit section on experiences of queer-identified people,
usually included in the LGBTQ acronym, namely because
there are no known studies specifically focusing on queer-
identified people and microaggressions. However, we
include queer people in our review (and title) for two
main reasons. First, many queer people may also identify
as LGBT and are included in many of these studies; we
will note those instances explicitly when appropriate.
Second, an increasing number of young people are identi-
fying as queer instead of lesbian, gay, or bisexual, as
demonstrated by a recent study with LGBTQ youth
(N = 202), which found that about half (54.7%) of the
female-born participants identified as gay/lesbian, while
22.1% identified as bisexual, and another 22.1% identified
as queer (Mustanski, Greene, Ryan, & Whitton, 2015).
Accordingly, excluding queer people from this review
could be considered a microaggression in itself.
SEXUAL ORIENTATION MICROAGGRESSIONS
Sexual orientation microaggressions are brief and com-
monplace slights and insults, whether intentional or unin-
tentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative
heterosexist and homophobic slights and insults toward gay,
lesbian, bisexual, and queer people (Nadal, 2013). These
microaggressions and negative attitudes toward LGBQ per-
sons can occur in a variety of settings and can be enacted on
interpersonal and systemic levels. While some research has
been conducted on lesbians, gay men, and bisexual indivi-
duals as distinct groups, the majority of research on subtle
discrimination and microaggressions has been done in the
context of LGBQ persons as an umbrella population.
The earliest studies on sexual orientation microaggres-
sions involved researchers aiming to examine themes of
microaggressions experienced by LGBQ people. Nadal,
Issa, and colleagues (2011) conducted a qualitative study
using focus groups (N = 26) to validate and confirm the
original theoretical taxonomy of Nadal, Rivera, and Corpus
(2010), using a sample of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer
(LGBQ) people in a metropolitan area in the Northeast. The
results of the study largely replicated the original taxonomy
and validated the following themes: (a) use of heterosexist
terminology, (b) endorsement of heteronormative culture/
behaviors, (c) assumption of universal LGBTQ experience,
(d) exoticization, (e) discomfort/disapproval of LGBTQ
experience, (f) denial of the reality of heterosexism, and
(g) assumption of sexual pathology/abnormality. One new
theme, threatening behaviors, emerged from the data; these
 MICROAGGRESSIONS AND LGBTQ PEOPLE
microassaults were characterized by aggressive threats, ver-
bal exchanges, or physical behavior that left victims feeling
unsafe and vulnerable. While participants reported histories
of physical assault that would qualify as hate crimes (and
not be considered microaggressions), the bullying and tense
environment created by the perpetrators’ hostile attitudes
prior to the event (e.g., name-calling, glares) could fall
under the category of microassaults in many circumstances
(Nadal, Issa, et al., 2011).
Another qualitative study conducted by Platt and Lenzen
(2013) expanded on the earlier typologies of sexual orienta-
tion microaggressions, sampling 12 LGBQ college students
in the Midwest. Through focus group interviews, research-
ers confirmed five previously discussed themes (e.g., use of
heterosexist terminology, endorsement of heteronormative
culture, homophobia, sinfulness, and oversexualization)
and revealed two additional themes (undersexualization
and microaggressions as humor). The theme of sinfulness
corresponds to Nadal, Issa, and colleagues’ (2011) themes
of assumption of sexual pathology/abnormality and discom-
fort/disapproval of the LGBQ experience, while oversexua-
lization is akin to the theme of exoticization. Participants
described undersexualization as instances in which friends
and family were initially neutral in response to their coming
out but expressed discomfort when the participants started
relationships with partners (Platt & Lenzen, 2013).
Participants remarked that their LGBQ identity did not
face overt criticism until they engaged in same-sex romantic
behaviors in front of the perpetrator, such as being in a
relationship or bringing home a partner. Microaggressions
as humor described a vehicle through which microaggres-
sion can be expressed rather than an overarching theme of
microaggressions (Platt & Lenzen, 2013). Participants
described this style of microaggression as particularly diffi-
cult to address, as perpetrators demonstrate awareness of the
wrongfulness of their statements by packaging it in humor,
then actively communicate the discriminatory messages as
unintentional or in jest (Platt & Lenzen, 2013).
Many of the other studies examining sexual orientation
microaggressions were also qualitative, using focus-group
methodologies to explore how microaggressions may man-
ifest in LGBQ people’s lives. One illustration is a qualitative
study by Shelton and Delgado-Romero (2013), who used
focus groups in the Southeastern United States (N = 16) to
investigate the types of microaggressions that LGBQ people
experience in psychotherapy. Results supported the exis-
tence of seven types of sexual orientation microaggressions
in psychotherapy: (a) assumption that sexual orientation is
the cause of all presenting issues, (b) avoidance and mini-
mizing of sexual orientation, (c) attempts to overidentify
with LGBTQ clients, (d) making stereotypical assumptions
about LGBTQ clients, (e) expressions of heteronormative
bias, (f) assumption that LGBTQ individuals need psy-
chotherapeutic treatment, and (g) warnings about the dan-
gers of identifying as LGBTQ (Shelton & Delgado-Romero,
2013). Experiencing microaggressions within the therapeu-
tic dyad is a particularly distressing problem, given the
intimacy of the relationship. Further research should be
conducted to determine whether higher quantities of micro-
aggressions are associated with dropout rates among LGBQ
persons seeking therapy.
In another qualitative study, Nadal, Wong, and collea-
gues (2011) examined the ways that LGBQ people react to,
and cope with, sexual orientation microaggressions.
Utilizing open-ended questions with focus groups of les-
bians, gay men, bisexual, and queer women and men
(N = 26), participants discussed how they tend to recognize
and respond to microaggressions when they occur. Three
major themes emerged: (a) behavioral reactions, (b) cogni-
tive reactions, and (c) emotional reactions. Behavioral reac-
tions ranged from passivity (i.e., not doing anything) to
confrontation (i.e., directly approaching the perpetrator and
addressing the situation). Cognitive reactions were thought
processes that people engaged in during and after experien-
cing a microaggression. For instance, some participants
shared that they accepted microaggressions as part of their
lives, while others claimed to have become more resilient
and empowered. Emotional reactions all consisted of the
different emotions LGBQ people experienced during or
after encountering microaggressions, ranging from sadness
to rage to disappointment. Focus group participants also
reported the spectrum of mental health issues they experi-
enced as a result of microaggressions. Five participants
described how microaggressions led to their bouts of
depression or anxiety; one participant in particular described
how she developed post-traumatic stress disorder partly due
to the bullying she endured at school. Further, participants
divulged the spectrum of systems or groups that have
enacted microaggressions in their lives, ranging from the
media to the government, religious groups, and school/edu-
cational systems (Nadal, Wong, et al., 2011).
In addition, Nadal, Wong, et al. (2011) demonstrated
systemic microaggressions that affect LGBQ people, arising
from the media, various religious groups, the government,
and educational systems. Regarding media, participants dis-
cussed the negative, stereotypical portrayals of LGBQ peo-
ple in the media, particularly (a) the sexualization and
objectification of LGBQ women and (b) the caricaturizing
of gay, bisexual, or queer men as promiscuous, drug-using,
flamboyant caricatures with attitudes, or having attitudes. In
terms of the government, participants described unfair laws
and policies, including Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell military poli-
cies and bans on same-sex marriage. While both of these
issues are no longer pertinent in the United States (i.e.,
given that the government now allows LGBTQ people to
serve in the military openly, while the U.S. Supreme Court
legalized same-sex marriage on the federal level), there are
still plenty of heterosexist and transphobic laws and policies
that would be considered microaggressions today—ranging
from employment nondiscrimination laws not viewing
LGBTQ people as protected classes or federal laws that
prevent gay, bisexual, and queer men from donating blood.
Participants also described systemic microaggressions from
religion (e.g., the Catholic Church viewing same-sex sexual
493
 NADAL, WHITMAN, DAVIS, ERAZO, AND DAVIDOFF
behavior or marriage as a sin) and in school settings (e.g.,
public affection policies that target same-sex couples but not
heterosexuals). While all of these qualitative studies were
helpful in exploring the general concepts of microaggres-
sions among LGBQ people, the sample sizes were small
(ranging from 12 to 26) and were limited to just three
geographic areas in the United States; two of the samples
consisted of mostly White participants, and most identified
as either gay or lesbian. Accordingly, studies with larger,
more diverse samples could be helpful in understanding
general themes of sexual orientation microaggressions.
Quantitative literature has also examined sexual orienta-
tion microaggressions. For example, Woodford, Kulick,
Sinco, and Hong (2014) investigated mechanisms underly-
ing relationships between psychological distress and hetero-
sexism (including overt discrimination, interpersonal
microaggressions, and environmental microaggressions).
Participants included college students (N = 299) who iden-
tified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or queer. Of the sample,
almost all participants reported experiencing interpersonal
microaggressions (96%) and environmental microaggres-
sions (98%), versus only 37% of the sample who experi-
enced blatant discrimination or were victimized due to their
sexual orientation. Results further indicated that microag-
gressions were predictors of both self-acceptance and dis-
tress (i.e., anxiety and perceived stress), while blatant
discrimination did not significantly relate to either variable.
Further, individuals’ level of self-acceptance (which con-
sisted of internalized LGBTQ pride and overall self-esteem)
acted as a mediator between subtle heterosexism and dis-
tress, suggesting that LGBTQ people who are more secure
in their identities may be better able to combat microaggres-
sions. Results of the study demonstrate the need for more
quantitative research, particularly in parsing out differences
between more blatant discrimination and microaggressions.
In another quantitative study, researchers created the
Homonegative Microaggression Scale (HMS) utilizing a
sample of 120 lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) participants
(Wright & Wegner, 2012). With 45 items created based on
microaggression theory (e.g., Sue, 2010a; Sue et al., 2007),
the measure demonstrated strong reliability, convergent
validity, and discriminant validity. Moreover, researchers
found that microaggressions based on sexual orientation
were associated with poorer self-esteem, negative feelings
about one’s LGB identity (i.e., “internalized negativity”),
and difficulty in the process of developing positive feelings
about one’s LGB identity. While the findings align with
previous literature on racial microaggressions and self-
esteem (e.g., Nadal, Griffin, et al., 2014), the HMS does
not include subscales, which limits our knowledge about
what types of microaggressions might negatively influence
self-esteem more than others.
A few dissertations have examined sexual orientation
microaggressions through quantitative analyses. Robinson
(2014) also used the HMS to examine the relationships
between sexual orientation microaggressions and posttrau-
matic stress symptoms. With a sample of 90 LGB
494
participants, the researcher found a positive correlation
between participants’ reported number of microaggres-
sions with their reported posttraumatic stress symptoms.
Further, in comparison to a control group of 80 hetero-
sexual participants, the researcher found a statistically
significant difference between individuals’ quantity of
sexual orientation microaggressions, as well as a statisti-
cally significant difference in reported posttraumatic
symptoms related to sexual orientation. Deitz (2015) sur-
veyed 233 LGBQ-identified participants using the HMS to
investigate the relationship between microaggressions and
psychological well-being. Findings indicated that an indi-
vidual’s expectations of rejection and internalized hetero-
sexism mediated the relationship between the experience
of microaggressions and psychological well-being. These
findings suggest that microaggressions negatively impact
LGBQ mental health, particularly when an individual has
internalized negative feelings about being LGBQ or has
expected rejection from others.
MacDonald (2013) created the Sexual Orientation
Microaggressions in Psychotherapy Scale (SOMAPS) to
examine how microaggressions affect LGBQ people’s per-
ceptions of working alliance and effectiveness in therapy.
With a sample of 76 participants, the researcher found that
the presence of sexual orientation microaggressions in psy-
chotherapy is associated with both a weakened therapeutic
alliance and decreased effectiveness of treatment, support-
ing Shelton and Delgado-Romero’s (2013) qualitative study,
which yielded similar results. Taken together, these disserta-
tion studies are laudable, supporting that sexual orientation
microaggressions are harmful for mental health and help-
seeking services; further studies with larger sample sizes
could help to further substantiate these hypotheses.
Smith and Shin (2014) used a psychodiscursive, qualita-
tive approach with 17 heterosexual/cisgender participants
who stated (and demonstrated) well-intentioned and positive
dispositions toward LGBTQ people. After interviewing all
of the participants, they conducted a case study analysis on
one participant’s transcript that demonstrated two microag-
gression themes. First, they coined the term queer blindfold-
ing, or blindness toward differences between heterosexual/
cisgender people and LGBTQ people. This concept is simi-
lar to colorblindness, which is described by Sue et al. (2007)
as microaggressive statements that “indicate that a White
person does not want to acknowledge race” (p. 276). In
Smith and Shin’s (2014) analysis, they discussed how their
participant wants to view that there is no difference between
herself and LGBTQ people, or at least how she tried to
maintain this perspective. While benevolent in intention,
this attitude negates the lived experiences and realities of
LGBTQ people, whose sexual orientation or gender identi-
ties may be important for them. Further, another microag-
gression theme the researchers identified was the idea of
exoticization, or the notion that people of more dominant
groups view experiences, traditions, or traits of those of a
marginalized group as “fun” or “exciting.” While seemingly
innocuous, the problematic nature of exoticization stems
 MICROAGGRESSIONS AND LGBTQ PEOPLE
from the “privilege of ‘celebrating’ cultures without having
to acknowledge or take on the burdens associated with
being part of the devalued and marginalized group” (Smith
& Shin, 2014, p. 954). Hence, while it might be “cool” to
have a gay friend, it would be important for individuals to
explore whether they are tokenizing their friend and how
such dynamics may be based on biases and stereotypes
about LGBTQ people.
Finally, Woodford, Paceley, Kulick, and Hong (2015)
examined how distal microaggressions (i.e., environmental
microaggressions) and proximal microaggressions (i.e.,
interpersonal microaggressions) affect LGBQ youth
(N = 299), particularly in relation to living in a state that
has heterosexist laws (e.g., lack of legal same-sex marriage
at the time of the study). Their findings suggest that living in
a state without heterosexist laws is associated with greater
self-esteem, while both distal and environmental microag-
gressions were related to both anxiety and stress. Similarly,
the researchers also found that identity salience (i.e., the
degree to which one is comfortable with one’s identity)
can serve as a moderator and protective factor against
microaggressions.
MICROAGGRESSIONS TOWARD LESBIAN
WOMEN, GAY MEN, AND BISEXUAL PEOPLE
The next section focuses on the experiences of distinct
LGBTQ subgroups and microaggressions. To date, most
studies on LGBQ people and sexual orientation microag-
gressions tend to lump LBGQ people into one umbrella
group, failing to describe differences between the various
subgroups. For instance, in all of the previously mentioned
qualitative studies (Nadal, Issa, et al., 2011; Nadal, Wong,
et al., 2011; Platt & Lenzen, 2013; Shelton & Delgado-
Romero, 2013), participants generally represented each sub-
group (e.g., lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer). However,
none of these studies consisted of all lesbian samples, all
gay male samples, all bisexual samples, or all male or all
female samples. Despite this limitation, there are some
studies that demonstrate particular trends for many of
these groups, with the exception of queer people, for
which there are no known studies.
Lesbian Women and Microaggressions
A few existing studies on lesbians and microaggres-
sions can help illuminate future directions for research. In
the aforementioned qualitative study of LGBTQ microag-
gressions in psychotherapy (Shelton & Delgado-Romero,
2013), five out of 16 participants self-identified as female
and either lesbian or queer. The researchers described a
theme of therapists making stereotypical assumptions
about LGBQ clients in which female participants often
reported comments focusing on their appearance or mak-
ing assumptions about codependency in their romantic
relationships. Thus, similar to microaggressions toward
women in general (e.g., Capodilupo et al., 2010), lesbians
encounter microaggressions that are centered in misogyny
(e.g., women are encouraged to care about their appear-
ance or are questioned about their relationship status,
whereas this is not as common an experience for men).
Second, in another study on microaggressions, the theme
of undersexualization described by Platt and Lenzen
(2013) may be experienced by lesbians as family members
and friends assuming their sexual orientation is “just a
phase” until a partner is brought home or the person
enters a serious relationship with another woman.
Because sexuality is still viewed as a choice by some,
particularly for women, it is possible that women (lesbian,
bisexual, and queer) may experience this sort of microag-
gression more than men.
While Nadal, Issa, et al. (2011) aimed to discover micro-
aggression themes for LGBQ people in general, a secondary
aim was to determine if different subgroups (e.g., lesbian
women, gay men, bisexual women, and bisexual men)
experienced the same types of microaggressions, or if their
experiences of subtle discrimination varied based on gender
and sexual orientation. The researchers found that some
microaggressive themes derived from the focus groups
were differentially experienced based on the participants’
gender and sexual orientation. In particular, both lesbian and
bisexual women were more likely to endorse the theme of
exoticization by heterosexual men and describe being inap-
propriately sexually propositioned, a microaggression that
was not reported by gay male participants (Nadal, 2011).
Within the theme endorsement of heteronormative cul-
ture/behaviors, female participants were also more likely to
describe instances where friends, family, and even strangers
suggested they should conform to gender roles, including
being told to dress in a more feminine manner consistent
with societal expectations for their gender. As an example,
one participant shared:
My girlfriend … she dresses a little boyish. [And this man]
looks at her and … he kept telling her, “Why do you dress
like that? You’re a girl. What are you doing? You’re sup-
posed to wear, you know, girly clothes… . Why do you
dress like a guy? Why do you look like a guy?” (Nadal, Issa,
et al., 2011, p. 245)
While men may be encouraged to conform to gender in
many other ways, women tend to be targeted more for their
dress or appearance. This notion is demonstrated in a qua-
litative study on experiences of LGBTQ Filipino
Americans, which found that lesbians and bisexual women
experienced messages about gender conformity regarding
their dress, while gay and bisexual men received negative
messages regarding their speech and mannerisms (Nadal &
Corpus, 2013). These instances indicate that microaggres-
sions are experienced differently based on gender identity
and gender presentation, supporting that microaggressions
should be studied more intentionally within different groups
across the LGBTQ spectrum. Further, future
495
 NADAL, WHITMAN, DAVIS, ERAZO, AND DAVIDOFF
microaggression research should seek to resolve the dearth
of literature on lesbian women, particularly given that a
recent survey conducted through the Pew Research Center
(2013) indicated LGBT-identified individuals perceived les-
bians and bisexual women as more socially accepted than
gay and bisexual men. Thus, it is possible that lesbian and
bisexual women are at a higher risk for experiencing more
subtle, unintentional, and/or covert discrimination character-
istics of microaggressions, rather than overt discrimination
or hate bias.
Gay Men and Microaggressions
Previous literature on microaggressions and gay men
suggest that gay men experience several types of micro-
aggressions. One of the most common types of microag-
gression experienced by gay men and boys is the use of
derisive heterosexist language. Nadal, Issa, et al. (2011)
reported that gay male participants described the casual
use of the terms gay and faggot (or fag) to demean others,
particularly males who are perceived as behaving outside
of gender norms. One instance includes a gay male parti-
cipant who shared, “When you’re angry at someone, you
can call them a ‘faggot’ and that’s still okay” (Nadal, Issa,
et al., 2011, p. 244). In a quantitative study analyzing data
from a campus climate survey (N = 3,762), researchers
found that the phrase “That’s so gay” is highly used when
one has friends who use the term, as well as when some-
one has higher levels of discomfort with feminine men
(Woodford, Howell, & Silverschanz, 2013). Further, in
another study with lesbian, gay, and bisexual college
students (N = 114), participants who reported hearing the
phrase “That’s so gay” on their college campus more
often also reported feeling more socially excluded, having
more headaches, and poorer appetite (Woodford, Howell,
Silverschanz, & Yu, 2012). Finally, in a national survey
examining microaggressions through the use of heterosex-
ist language, McCabe, Dragowski, and Rubinson (2013)
examined perceptions of school psychologists (N = 292),
finding that while few school psychologists (16%)
reported witnessing overt LGBTQ bias or harassment,
almost half of respondents (43%) indicated that they
heard students say “That’s so gay” or use the term faggot
at least once per month. Even more disturbingly, 45% of
these school psychologists reported hearing another tea-
cher or staff member use such language in the past year.
These numbers are especially alarming given that nearly
half of the psychologists in the sample were employed in
elementary schools, indicating that children are getting
early exposure to this biased language.
A second common microaggression experienced by gay
men is the policing of masculinity and the endorsement of
masculine gender roles for men and boys. In Nadal, Issa,
and colleagues’ (2011) study, one gay male participant
reported that he had been told that he could not play on
the football team due to being gay, a common stereotype
496
that suggests that all gay men are effeminate, or at least less
masculine or athletic than straight men. In the same vein,
another gay man reported that he felt as though gay men
were expected to work as decorators, beauticians, or other
professions traditionally associated with feminine interests.
Previous research on masculinity threats, or the notion that
heterosexual men tend to isolate themselves from or discri-
minate against gay men (or women) because of their own
insecurities (Weaver & Vescio, 2015), is likely related to
these types of microaggressions and should be studied
further.
Other types of microaggressions commonly encountered
by gay men include statements and behaviors based on
stereotypes. For instance, some gay male participants in
Nadal, Issa, et al.’s (2011) study stated that heterosexuals
seem to expect them to be entertaining and assume that they
all live “fabulous” lifestyles, which does not reflect the
reality of individual differences among gay men (Nadal,
Issa, et al., 2011). While meant to be a compliment, in
that people stereotype gay men as being well dressed,
clean, and smart, being portrayed as a stereotype can feel
daunting and tokenizing for many gay men. Similarly,
another common stereotype that may result in microaggres-
sions are behaviors or statements that assume gay men are
sexually predatory and/or pedophilic. For example, in the
aforementioned qualitative study of LGBQ persons’ experi-
ences in psychotherapy (Shelton & Delgado-Romero,
2013), some gay male participants noted that their therapists
often assumed that their clients’ sexual relationships were
not monogamous. Similarly, in another qualitative study,
one male participant expressed: “[My roommate] found
out that I was gay and he had brought the cup that I had
drank out of … and he was, like, freaking out. Like ‘Do [I
have to take] an HIV test now?”’ (Nadal, Issa, et al., 2011,
pp. 249–250).
Finally, while there are many opportunities for growth in
the literature on gay men and microaggressions, some lit-
erature on gay men and perceived (or subtle) discrimination
may have implications for microaggression theory. One
example is a study by Huebner and Davis (2007) who
surveyed gay and bisexual men (N = 368) with a new,
adapted measure on perceived anti-gay discrimination.
(Sample items included: “In the past year, how often have
you been called a homophobic name like fag or sissy?”; “In
the past year, how often have you heard people making
homophobic jokes about gay people?”; and “In the past
year, how often have you been treated unfairly by your
family because you are gay or bisexual?”) Results found
that gay male participants who reported more experiences of
perceived anti-gay discrimination were more likely to report
higher levels of nonprescription drug use, more physician
visits, and more sick days used in the workplace (Huebner
& Davis, 2007). Given this, further studies on gay men and
microaggressions might be helpful in understanding an
array of health disparities affecting gay men, or men who
have sex with men in general.
 MICROAGGRESSIONS AND LGBTQ PEOPLE
Bisexual People and Microaggressions
Little research has specifically attended to bisexual peo-
ple, a fact that in and of itself may be understood as a
systemic microaggression toward this group. Even a cursory
review of the literature in the area of LGBTQ microaggres-
sions reveals the following flaws: (a) bisexual participants
are underrepresented in research samples and (b) bisexual
participants are not addressed as a specific group but rather
lumped in with lesbian, gay, and transgender participants,
reducing the availability of empirical knowledge about this
population. Despite this, a few studies have examined bisex-
ual people’s experiences with microaggressions. First, in an
online survey of LGB individuals, Sarno and Wright (2013)
found that the types of microaggressions reported by gay,
lesbian, and bisexual individuals (N = 120), respectively,
were generally similar. However, there was a difference with
the microaggressions concerning the theme ascription of
intelligence, which is defined by presumption of a certain
level of intellect or skill based on sexual orientation stereo-
types (e.g., presuming that gay or bisexual men would excel
at interior design or that LGB women would be skilled as
auto mechanics). In this study, bisexuals reported lower
instances than gay men and lesbian women for this sub-
scale, suggesting that bisexual people are not stereotyped in
the same way as gay men or lesbian women. Perhaps this
may be due to the notion of “passing” or people presuming
that one is heterosexual, or because bisexuals are not stereo-
typed in these rigid ways.
In the same study, Sarno and Wright (2013) reported that
bisexual individuals more frequently experienced the micro-
aggressive theme of alien in own land, which HMS authors
Wright and Wegner (2012) defined as “examining how
frequently they were asked about their boyfriends (if they
were women) or girlfriends (if they were men) or how
frequently people acted as if they had not come out” (p.
39). Bisexuals also exhibited more identity confusion and
internalized binegativity/homonegativity than both gay men
and lesbians. Overall, bisexuals reported more negative
beliefs and feelings regarding their sexual identity than
gay men and lesbians reported about their sexual identities.
A mediation model indicated that bisexuality had a direct
effect on identity confusion and that the alien in own land
microaggressions they experienced further strengthened the
relationship between bisexuality and identity confusion.
These results support previous findings that bisexuals are
often unwelcome in both gay and straight communities,
often being forced to choose between inclusion in one
community or exclusion from both (Mulick & Wright,
2002).
While many people struggle with their sexual orientation
identities at some point in their lives, bisexual people face
additional microaggressions from others who consistently
stereotype them as pathological or “confused”—questioning
their sexual authenticity. In the aforementioned study by
Nadal, Issa, et al. (2011), bisexual participants described
being frequently assumed to be gay or lesbian. They
reported feeling that others invalidated their identity by
espousing the belief that one is either gay or straight, essen-
tially denying the existence of bisexuality. One bisexual
female participant revealed this experience:
I actually went to a taping of [a talk show] recently, and it
was an episode about gay marriage and gay issues, and [the
host] had everyone in the audience wear T-shirts that they
gave us that said either straight or gay or whatever on them.
It was really cheesy, but they didn’t have a shirt that said bi.
They had a straight shirt, a gay shirt, and then a shirt with a
question mark on it. I was like, “What the fuck is this?” I’m
like, my sexual orientation is not a question mark. I didn’t
like how it could be implied that I’m confused. (Nadal, Issa,
et al., 2011, p. 248)
Exoticization is another common microaggression
experienced by bisexual individuals. In the same qualitative
study (Nadal, Issa, et al., 2011), bisexual females described
feeling sexually objectified by heterosexual males, who
often assume that they would be more open than hetero-
sexual women to engaging in sexual activities with a hetero-
sexual couple. Bisexual women in particular reported that
others presumed they are confused about their sexual iden-
tity or are experimenting sexually—thus eliminating con-
siderations of bisexuality as a valid, nonpathological sexual
orientation. For instance, one bisexual woman shared: “A
lot of guys would think, you know, because I’m into both
guys and girls that I’ll be like down with the threesome
kinda thing, and it’s like ugh, get over yourself” (Nadal
et al., 2011, p. 247).
Given that most of the previous studies with sexual
orientation microaggressions included bisexuals in a mixed
group of LGBQ samples, one study aimed to highlight
bisexual-specific microaggressions that may be unique
from sexual orientation microaggressions reported by les-
bians and gay men (Bostwick & Hequembourg, 2014).
Using two focus groups with 10 bisexual women (five
women per group), participants were asked about their
various experiences with microaggressions. Themes
included (a) hostility denial/dismissal (i.e., experiences in
which people display their biases or negative feelings about
bisexual people); (b) unintelligibility (i.e., statements in
which nonbisexual people express confusion or lack of
understanding about bisexuality); (c) pressure to change
(i.e., statements from romantic partners to “choose” the
sexual orientation that matches their relationship); (d) les-
bian, gay, bisexual, and transgender legitimacy (i.e., experi-
ences in which bisexuals are viewed as legitimate members
of the general LGBTQ community); (f) dating exclusion
(i.e., instances in which bisexual people are pressured
about who they can or cannot date); and (g) hypersexuality
(i.e., stereotyped statements or behaviors about bisexuals
being hypersexual and nonmonogamous). While one limita-
tion to the study was that participants were almost all White,
results from the study demonstrate the need to disaggregate
LGBTQ subgroups when examining microaggressions,
497
 NADAL, WHITMAN, DAVIS, ERAZO, AND DAVIDOFF
particularly for groups that are often less visible or who
experience marginalization within the general LGBTQ
community.
Finally, there are no known studies on microaggressions
and bisexual men, demonstrating the overall invisibility of
the group. Previous researchers have described how bisex-
ual men are often invisible in the broad LGBTQ community,
due to the stigma of bisexuality; yet at the same time, many
bisexual men may not come out publicly as bisexual in
general society due to the stigma of being perceived as
gay (Steinman, 2011). Future studies on microaggressions
and bisexual men can further examine this construct of
bisexual invisibility while also exploring and discovering
other types of microaggressions that may exist particularly
toward this group.
MICROAGGRESSIONS TOWARD TRANSGENDER
AND GENDER-NONCONFORMING PEOPLE
Despite the growing body of research examining micro-
aggressions among the lesbian, gay, and bisexual commu-
nities, a substantially smaller body of research specifically
examines microaggressive experiences among individuals
who identify as transgender or gender nonconforming.
While gender identity is often conflated with sexual orienta-
tion in research regarding generalized LGBTQ commu-
nities, research supports investigations of transgender
experiences as unique and independent from studies exam-
ining sexual orientation (Fassinger, Arseneau, Bieschke,
Perez, & DeBord, 2007). For example, McCarthy (2003)
argued that while including the T in LGBT creates a guise of
inclusion, nesting the transgender community within a lar-
ger community based on sexual orientation (rather than
gender identity) actually serves to isolate and promote invi-
sibility of transgender perspectives. In line with these find-
ings, some studies have emerged investigating transgender
experiences with microaggressions, independent from those
of LGBQ people.
Nadal, Skolnik, and Wong (2012) conducted a qualitative
investigation of microaggressions toward individuals who
identify as transgender to examine the applicability of the
taxonomy presented by Nadal, Rivera, and Corpus (2010) to
transgender people’s experiences. From two focus group
discussions with nine transgender-identified participants
(both female-to-male and male-to-female), a directed con-
tent analysis (DCA) approach revealed 12 themes of micro-
aggressions specific to the experiences of TGNC
individuals. The first theme, use of transphobic and/or
incorrectly gendered terminology, includes the use of dero-
gatory terms, such as she-male, or the use of incorrect
pronouns, such as referring to someone who identifies as
male as “she.” The second theme, assumption of a universal
transgender experience, may manifest in assumptions that
all transgender individuals conform to common stereotypes.
For example, a negative (and frequently inaccurate) stereo-
type persists that transgender women engage in prostitution.
498
Transgender participants reported facing this stereotypical
assumption from law enforcement personnel who assumed
that, by virtue of their gender identity or presentation, they
engaged in prostitution. The third theme, exoticization,
occurs when transgender individuals are fetishized or objec-
tified as a result of their gender identity or presentation (e.g.,
participants reported experiencing “tokenism” where indivi-
duals befriended them as a result of their gender identity for
the ability to report having a transgender friend). The fourth
theme, discomfort with/disapproval of the transgender
experience, is expressed when individuals face condemna-
tion or even disgust upon revealing their transgender iden-
tity to another person (or worse, having their transgender
identity revealed without their consent).
The fifth theme, endorsement of gender normative and
binary culture or behaviors, manifests in the assumption of
gender norms consistent with an individual’s sex assigned at
birth rather than their gender identity (e.g., assuming that a
transgender male would be less qualified to handle physical
labor as a result of stereotypes that cisgender females pos-
sess less physical strength compared to cisgender males).
The sixth theme, denial of the existence of transphobia,
occurs when individuals minimize the struggles of transgen-
der individuals against hetero- and cisnormative societal
values and biases, such as transphobia. The seventh theme,
assumption of sexual pathology or abnormality, manifests
when people presume that transgender identities are inher-
ently pathological (e.g., assuming that being transgender is a
psychological disorder or that all transgender women are
hypersexual), while the theme physical threat or harassment
involves overtly threatening individuals based on their gen-
der identity. The theme denial of individual transphobia
occurs when individuals fail to acknowledge the ways they
may exhibit transphobic actions or ideas in their daily lives
(e.g., a cisgender individual in a relationship with someone
who identifies as transgender may discriminate against his
or her partner, yet deny it when confronted). The theme
denial of bodily privacy occurs when nontransgender indi-
viduals assume a right to openly request information regard-
ing intimate details of transgender individuals’ lives. Such
experiences can range from outright requests for descrip-
tions of an individual’s genitalia to staring extensively at an
individual in an attempt to discern gender identity (in
essence, sizing up their physical characteristics against soci-
etal gender norms). The theme familial microaggressions
consists of microaggressions experienced within family con-
texts. One illustration includes the notion that transgender
individuals who transition later in life may face family
members who refuse to transition with them—evidenced
by refusal to use gender-appropriate pronouns or respect
the individual’s desire to be called by the name that aligns
with his or her gender identity.
Similar to previous studies with LGBQ people, transgen-
der participants also identified an array of daily systemic
microaggressive experiences (Nadal, Skolnik, & Wong,
2012). Four categories of systemic microaggressions
described by transgender people include (a) public
 MICROAGGRESSIONS AND LGBTQ PEOPLE
restrooms, (b) the criminal justice system, (c) emergency
health care, and (d) government-issued identification.
Transgender individuals reported consistent problems with
public issues, including the lack of gender-neutral restrooms
or the discomfort or harassment they encounter when they
use the restroom of the gender with which they identify.
Participants also described how the gender binary affects
their experiences within the criminal justice system—from
being frisked and searched by someone of the opposite
gender to being housed according to a gender that contrasts
with their identities. Participants discussed both overt and
subtle discrimination they encounter in emergency health
care, particularly from health care workers who are not
educated or trained on transgender issues. Finally, they
discussed microaggressions related to government-issued
identification, particularly related to the difficulty in chan-
ging the sex indicator on legal documents (e.g., identifica-
tion cards, driver’s licenses, passports, etc.). While this
exploratory study yielded valuable preliminary information,
one major limitation to the study is the small sample size,
the single metropolitan area from which participants were
recruited, and the notion that all of the participants identified
with binary identities (with many participants having under-
gone or completed gender-affirming medical treatments). It
would be crucial to understand how gender presentation and
appearance, particularly when one does not have access to
resources for medical treatments, might affect experiences
with microaggressions. Further, examining geographic
region, access to transgender communities and social net-
works, and other related factors might influence experiences
with microaggressions.
One study examined how transgender and gender-variant
people experience microaggressions in the context of friend-
ships (Galupo, Henise, & Davis, 2014). Using qualitative
and quantitative methods (N = 207), participants were first
asked about the types of microaggressions described in
Nadal, Skolnik, and Wong’s (2012) transgender taxonomy
(e.g., use of transphobic and/or incorrectly gendered termi-
nology, exoticization) in the context of friendships.
Participants described significantly more frequent microag-
gressions from heterosexual, cisgender friends compared to
cisgender LGBQ friends. In addition, microaggressions
experienced within peer contexts negatively influenced par-
ticipant perceptions of closeness in friendships. Peer micro-
aggressions also contributed to greater emotional distress,
particularly when perpetrated by a peer with a similar gen-
der identity, compared to microaggressions in nonfriendship
contexts.
Galupo et al. (2014) also found that transgender partici-
pants reported differential microaggressive experiences
based on friendship category (e.g., friendships with other
transgender or gender-variant people, friendships with other
LGBTQ people, and friendships outside the LGBTQ com-
munity). In describing experiences among other transgender
or gender-variant peers, participants commonly reported
invalidation of their gender authenticity, such as questioning
whether the person is “trans* enough.” Participants
described feeling as though the LGBQ cisgender friend
“should have known better” or should be more aware of
trans-related issues. Microaggressions within the third cate-
gory of peer relationships, cisgender heterosexual friends,
paralleled microaggression themes previously reported in
Nadal, Skolnik, and Wong (2012), including themes of
rejection and/or invalidation of participant identities, feel-
ings, and experiences.
In a further noteworthy contribution to the pool of litera-
ture regarding transgender microaggressions, Galupo and
colleagues (2014) noted an additional theme regarding pre-
valent questioning of the legitimacy of individual gender
identities, illustrated by societal and interpersonal invalida-
tions of transgender identities and assumptions of gender
inauthenticity. For example, one transman described the
following experience:
When I first came out to one friend and explained that I was
now gay as well as trans, she seemed confused and told me,
“You don’t have to become a man just to get with another
guy. You can get plenty of guys and stay female!” I tried to
explain there is a world of difference between being with a
man as a straight woman versus as a gay man … What
really confused me was that she’s bi and polyamorous … If
any of my friends “got” it, I’d expected [sic] it to be her!”
(p. 465)
Similarly describing invalidations of their gender legiti-
macy, a person who identified as agender or gender fluid
disclosed:
This occurs frequently with my trans* friend … He fre-
quently disregards my preferred pronouns … despite him
knowing better. I have frequently been told that “if you’re a
girl with a vagina and you don’t mind being called she, then
you’re a girl, stop making up stupid terms.” (p. 465)
These two examples illustrate the diversity of potential
sources of microaggressions experienced by individuals
across the spectrum of gender and highlight the harmful
impacts of such experiences upon the emotional well-
being of people who identify as TGNC.
Chang and Chung (2015) composed a theoretical article
on transgender microaggressions, reviewing the past
research that has been conducted, while citing the limita-
tions of previous studies and providing recommendations
for the future. First, they described an emphasis in previous
studies on whether a transgender individual has sought or
completed medical transitions (e.g., hormone therapy or
gender-reassignment surgery). In highlighting this detrimen-
tal skew, the authors cited the need to examine perspectives
of individuals who identify as genderqueer or gender non-
conforming as well as those who identify as transgender but
do not desire physiological transition through medical pro-
cedures. Further, the authors recommended future explora-
tion to identify potential differences in microaggressive
experiences between transmen and transwomen (e.g., Do
transgender men encounter certain microaggressions that
499
 NADAL, WHITMAN, DAVIS, ERAZO, AND DAVIDOFF

transgender women do not, and vice versa?). Last, the Genderqueer People and Microaggressions
authors advocated for future research to address and explore
While Galupo et al. (2014) included both transgender
intersectionality and the complex relationship between gen-
and gender-nonconforming people in their study, no
der identity and sexual orientation (e.g., How does being a
known studies explicitly investigated the experience of peo-
gay transgender man influence experiences of microaggres-
ple who identify with a nonbinary gender (e.g., genderqueer,
sions compared to those of a heterosexually identified trans-
agender, bigender, androgynous). Elizabeth (2013) likened
gender man?).
the current milieu of increasing awareness of genderqueer
Nadal, Davidoff, Davis, and Wong (2014) sought to
identities to how individuals have traditionally viewed
better understand how transgender individuals react to and
bisexuality in the past, highlighting the societal friction
cope with microaggressive experiences. Based on qualita-
caused by nonbinary conceptualizations entering into a bin-
tive reports of the experiences of nine transgender indivi-
ary system of thought. Despite this dearth of literature,
duals, these researchers uncovered three domains of
genderqueer people are becoming more visible, as evi-
responses to microaggressions: emotional, behavioral, and
denced by a recent online study of transgender self-identifi-
cognitive. Emotional reactions to microaggressions included
cations in which the researchers found that the most
anger, betrayal, hopelessness, and exhaustion, as well as
commonly endorsed gender identity was genderqueer, and
feeling invalidated and/or misunderstood. Cognitive reac-
not that of transgender binary (Kuper, Nussbaum, and
tions included rationalization (e.g., that microaggressors
Mustanski, 2011). For this section, we use the term gender-
simply lack education) and double-binds, such as struggling
queer to define anyone who does not identify with a binary
to maintain a balance between personal privacy and disclo-
(exclusively male/female) conceptualization of gender. This
sure. Notably, cognitive reactions also manifested adap-
may include people who identify as gender nonconforming
tively, such as vigilance and self-preservation (e.g.,
(GNC), agender, bigender, two-spirited, or any number of
modifying self-disclosure based on experience to maximize
additional terms.
safety) and resiliency and empowerment through identity
Despite this lack of literature on microaggressions and
pride. Behavioral reactions included directly confronting
genderqueer people, several studies may highlight the types
the microaggressor regarding the discriminatory nature of
of microaggressions that genderqueer people encounter.
their words or actions, indirect confrontation such as setting
Perhaps the most common theme of microaggressions for
boundaries or intentionally avoiding situations in which
genderqueer people is the presumption of the gender binary,
microaggressions might be more likely to occur, as well as
a concept supported by previous literature. Shulz (2012)
passive coping strategies, such as avoidance or seeking to
conducted interviews with 28 GNC participants who iden-
appease the microaggressor to diffuse a tense situation. In
tify as transmasculine (i.e., those who were assigned female
summary, while participants largely reported emotional
at birth but identify with masculinity to a greater extent than
reactions consistent with negative affect or emotional dis-
with femininity) to explore their experiences within the
comfort, cognitive strategies such as rationalization and
health care system. Participants reported experiencing dis-
behavioral strategies to avoid or minimize gender identity–
crimination as a result of their gender identity/presentation
related confrontation constituted a multiplicity of responses
across all domains of the health care system. For example,
both distressing and, at times, empowering.
they discussed encountering only binary (i.e., only male or
While not directly focusing on the construct of microag-
female option) gender bathrooms at health care facilities,
gressions, Singh, Hays, and Watson (2011) conducted a
binary gender checkboxes on intake and insurance forms,
qualitative analysis of reactions to discrimination among
insurance policies which either passively omitted or actively
transgender participants and, similarly to the adaptive
excluded transgender-specific services, such as hormone
responses reported by Nadal, Davidoff, et al. (2014),
therapy or sex reassignment surgery, and discrimination
found five themes of resiliency among participant responses.
during interactions with health care providers. In a theore-
These five themes included: (a) an evolving self-generated
tical review, Donatone and Rachlin (2013) described the
perception of self, (b) a likeliness of embracing of self-
various obstacles experienced by TGNC people, particularly
worth, (c) awareness of oppression, (d) connection with
college students who may seek mental health services and
supportive communities, and (e) cultivation of hope for the
experience clinicians with limited exposure or knowledge of
future. Combined with the findings of Nadal, Davidoff,
TGNC people. We provide recommendations for how pro-
et al. (2014), these results indicate a certain prevalence of
viders can counsel TGNC people in culturally competent
adaptive responses to discrimination, including themes of
ways, particularly challenging how clinicians tend to think
identity affirmation, self-esteem, and community affiliation,
of gender and sexual orientation in binary ways.
in addition to the negative implications of discrimination.
Another common microaggression with genderqueer
Thus, future research should refrain from exclusively utiliz-
people is the use of incorrect gender pronouns, particularly
ing the framework of the “passive victim,” as transgender
after someone has been corrected or informed of a gender-
populations also actively reframe their microaggressive and
queer person’s preferences. Testa, Habarth, Peta, Balsam,
discriminatory experiences into adaptive strategies and
and Bockting (2015) labeled this type of experience as
outcomes.
“nonaffirmation” and stated that it occurs when others do

500
 MICROAGGRESSIONS AND LGBTQ PEOPLE
not affirm an individual’s sense of gender identity. While
nonaffirmation can occur with binary transgender people,
nonaffirmation affects genderqueer people specifically when
people do not refer to GNC people in gender-neutral ways.
As an example, some genderqueer people self-identify with
the pronoun “they”; however, many people may refuse to
use this term because they perceive it as a plural pronoun,
grammatically incorrect, or both. Although nontraditional
pronouns are part of a genderqueer person’s identity (and
feel most correct for them), others who do not understand
may simply ignore their request, due to rigidity, bias, or
apathy. This type of invalidation may be detrimental for
genderqueer people, who are told that their identities and
experiences are not valid.
Wyss (2004) investigated experiences of discrimination
and harassment among GNC youth who identified as gen-
derqueer, butch lesbians, or transgender. While the study
focused primarily on violence and harassment, several
microaggression themes emerged. First, participants
described instances in which they were pressured to con-
form to their gender assigned at birth, aligning with the
previous microaggression theme of endorsement of hetero-
normative or gender conforming behaviors. For instance,
one genderqueer person revealed:
People perceived me as female. So I really tried to be female
and like a straight girl. Like I really fucking tried. This was
ninth grade. And I did everything right, ya’ know? Like I
was the most feminine, hyper-straight girl you ever saw in
your entire life. (p. 723)
Similarly, while many of these youth participants talked
about actual violence, assault, and overt harassment, some
described the hypervigilence they experienced constantly;
they felt the need to be constantly aware of the behaviors
and reactions of their fellow students in fear that they might
harass or target them. These types of incidents might be
similar to the microaggression theme of threatening beha-
viors, in which a situation feels unsafe regardless of whether
someone has actually become harassed or physically
attacked. Sometimes these situations may lead to violence,
though even non–physically violent experiences can be
experienced as emotionally taxing.
Finally, Tate, Ledbetter, and Youssef (2013) described
how genderqueer people and experiences are often misiden-
tified in research due to disparities, inaccuracies, and limita-
tions in how researchers pose questions. For example, when
researchers use single-item questions to measure gender
(e.g., male, female, transgender, other), people who are
genderqueer may not self-disclose their gender identity.
Tate and colleagues (2013) recommended using two sepa-
rate questions to measure gender identity (e.g., current gen-
der identity and birth-assigned sex), with multiple options
for people to choose and self-identify. In doing so, gender-
queer participants will likely view surveys or questionnaires
as being more inclusive or sensitive, compared to rigid
research questionnaires that may be viewed as invalidating
or restrictive.
INTERSECTIONAL MICROAGGRESSIONS
Echoed throughout this summary has been the need for
increased research regarding microaggression theory and
LGBTQ people. Similarly, research concerning microag-
gressions and intersectional identities remains scant. While
studies have thoroughly investigated the microaggressive
experiences of people of color (Wong et al., 2014), far less
information exists regarding the experiences of LGBTQ
with multiple identities (e.g., LGBTQ people of color,
LGBTQ people with disabilities). Much of the literature
on microaggressions examines them narrowly, through the
eyes of a singular identity (e.g., race/ethnicity), as opposed
to exploring them through a perspective that encompasses
the many facets and identities of multiply marginalized
individuals (Nadal, Davidoff, et al., 2015). Intersectionality
of marginalized identities can result “in multiple dimensions
of disadvantage” (Macionis & Gerber, 2011, p. 310), thus
warranting inclusion as the field of microaggression
research continues to expand. In recent years, there has
been a call for researchers to begin examining intersectional
microaggressions, or “subtle forms of discrimination that are
based on an individuals’ multiple social identities” (Nadal,
2013, p. 36).
Intersectional microaggressions are important to explore
further, given that an individual’s experiences with discri-
mination may be influenced by a multitude of identities and
factors. For example, an individual who is a low-income,
first-generation, queer, cisgender woman of color may
encounter many types of microaggressions based on her
singular identities (e.g., queer, female, or generational sta-
tus). In addition, the constellation of her identities could be
the target of microaggressive messages and actions; she
could endure discrimination based on her sexual orientation
and gender, or gender and social status, or race and gender,
and so forth. Investigation of this intersectionality of iden-
tities would contribute a wealth of information to the litera-
ture on microaggression theory. Some researchers have
already investigated these many, interwoven identities and
systems of oppression.
In recent years, researchers have begun examining how
LGBTQ people with intersectional identities experience
microaggressions in unique ways, and how such encounters
may influence mental health. Balsam, Molina, Beadnell,
Simoni, and Walters (2011) executed a three-phase, mixed
method study to develop a new measure known as the
LGBT People of Color Microaggressions Scale (LGBT-
PCMS). The LGBT-PCMS is an 18-item self-report ques-
tionnaire that assesses the frequency and associated distress
of microaggressions experienced by LGBT people of color
(LGBT-POC). The LGBT-PCMS includes three subscales:
(a) racism in LGBTQ communities (LGBTQ racism); (b)
501
 NADAL, WHITMAN, DAVIS, ERAZO, AND DAVIDOFF
heterosexism in racial/ethnic communities (POC heterosex-
ism); and (c) racism in dating and close relationships
(LGBTQ relationship racism). The LGBT-PCMS demon-
strated high internal consistency (α = .92), and the three
subscales were strongly interrelated.
Balsam et al. (2011) also found significant sociodemo-
graphic differences in reported distress and frequency of
microaggressive experiences. LGBTQ Asian American par-
ticipants reported significantly more microaggressive
experiences and resultant distress, in comparison to
LGBTQ African Americans and Latina/os. In addition,
LGBTQ men of color reported significantly more microag-
gressive experiences/distress compared to LGBTQ women
of color. These findings corroborate previous research on
men’s experiences with racism in LGBTQ circles
(Malebranche, Fields, Bryant, & Harper, 2009; Wilson
et al., 2009). Last, Balsam et al. (2011) found that, overall,
lesbians and gay men reported higher experiences of
LGBTQ racism and LGBTQ relationship racism compared
to their bisexual male and female counterparts. Given its
promising psychometric properties and preliminary applica-
tions for the measurement of intersectional microaggres-
sions, the LGBT-PCMS offers researchers a tool to begin
bridging the gap in microaggression literature to include
intersectional identities.
One dissertation also examined intersectional microag-
gressions, particularly focusing on African American les-
bians (N = 25), aiming to validate the Microaggressions and
Intersectionality Index (Oshi-Ojuri, 2013). The measure
consists of three subscales, focusing on racial microaggres-
sions, gender microaggressions, and sexual orientation
microaggressions. Because the sample size was very small,
particularly for a quantitative study, the findings are quite
limited. However, the content of the measure has potential
merit, if tested for reliability and validity with a larger
sample of African Americans lesbians, other subgroups of
LGBQ women of color, or LGBQ women of color in gen-
eral. Another critique of this study and to existing quantita-
tive research on intersectional microaggressions for LGBTQ
people of color is the difficulty in measuring the intersec-
tionality. For instance, both scales assess experiences with
racial microaggressions, independent of their experiences
with sexual orientation microaggressions. However, many
intersectional microaggressions may result from a multipli-
city of identity combinations (e.g., a Latina lesbian woman
who is isolated or excluded by her work colleagues because
of her race, her gender, her sexual orientation, or some
combination of all three and more). Future researchers
may need to be more creative in measuring the complexities
of intersectional microaggressions.
In terms of intersectional microaggression and qualita-
tive studies, Follins (2014) examined the experiences of
12 young, Black and Latino gay men using semistruc-
tured, individual interviews to understand experiences of
the types of microaggressions they encountered. Results
indicated four overall themes of microaggressions experi-
enced: (a) sexual objectification; (b) alien in one’s own
502
land; (c) other (negative) assumed attributes of Black and
Latino people; and (d) participants’ behavioral and emo-
tional reactions to racial microaggressions. Interestingly,
the researcher attributed many microaggressions to the
multiple participant identities, whereas participants them-
selves attributed them to one aspect of their identity
(usually race). As a result, objective versus subjective
interpretations of microaggressive experiences may con-
tribute to the difficulty in measuring intersectional micro-
aggressions. People tend to perceive slights against one
aspect of their collective identity and/or have difficulty
deciphering to which identity they should attribute the
slights. Future research may attempt to further parse out
this attribution discrepancy.
Similarly, Bowleg (2013) interviewed 12 American gay
and bisexual Black men in the Washington, DC, area.
Interviews responses comprised four general categories: (a)
participants offered explicit and implicit descriptions of
intersectionality; (b) participants identified primarily as
Black and/or Black men (rather than primarily as gay or
bisexual men); (c) specific challenges were noted (e.g., race-
based microaggressions and negative stereotypes in White
LGBTQ circles); and (d) perceived benefits of intersection-
ality were noted (e.g., psychological growth and resilience).
Based on these findings, Bowleg (2013) positsed that, in
addition to negative impacts, intersectionality theory can
also explore positive strengths associated with multiple
marginalized identities. Similar to Follins (2014), Bowleg
(2013) found that although participants endorsed multiple
marginalized identities they often attributed microaggres-
sions to only one identity.
Most recently, Nadal, Davidoff, and colleagues (2015)
qualitatively investigated intersectionality of microaggres-
sions pertaining to race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orienta-
tion, and religion. Through analyzing qualitative responses
from 19 focus groups including 80 participants, the authors
proposed eight themes of intersectional microaggressions:
(a) exoticization of women of color; (b) gender stereotypes
for lesbians/gay men; (c) disapproval of LGBTQ identity
from within racial/ethnic and/or religious communities; (d)
assumption of inferior status for women of color; (e) invi-
sibility and desexualization of Asian men; (f) assumptions
of inferiority and/or criminality for men of color; (g) gender
stereotypes for Muslim individuals; and (h) women of color
as spokespersons. Specific to LGBTQ people are themes (b)
and (c), in which LGBTQ people of color describe gendered
stereotypes experienced as resulting from the intersection of
their race, gender, and sexual orientation, as well as the
messages of disapproval they receive from their various
racial and ethnic communities.
In summary, these studies highlight the intersectional
nature of microaggressive experiences as individuals experi-
enced and perceived microaggressions as resulting from
multiple marginalized identities rather than as responses to
any singular marginalized identity (e.g., race/ethnicity
alone). While current research on intersections of LGBTQ
identity with race represents a compelling and informative
 MICROAGGRESSIONS AND LGBTQ PEOPLE
foundation, additional research should continue to explore
the multifaceted interactions of intersectional marginalized
identities and microaggressive experiences. While Nadal
(2013) highlighted past research concentrating on LGBTQ
people with disabilities, LGBTQ elderly, and LGBTQ
youth, future researchers may be compelled to examine
these groups’ experiences of discrimination through the
lens of intersectional microaggressions.
DISCUSSION
The current literature review provided an overview of the
various types of microaggressions affecting the lesbian, gay,
bisexual, transgender, and queer communities. We discussed
the types of microaggressions that affect the umbrella
LGBTQ population, while reviewing both theoretical and
empirical literature with each LGBTQ subgroup: gay men,
lesbians, bisexual people, transgender people, genderqueer
people, and people with multiple marginalized identities.
While research on this topic is still in its nascent stages,
and while there are no known studies explicitly on gender-
queer people and microaggressions, it appears that the field
of microaggressions has grown significantly over the past
10 years, particularly regarding the ways that microaggres-
sions affect LGBTQ people.
Despite this, a common theme echoed throughout our
review is the need for additional research with increased
sensitivity and specificity. As stated throughout this article,
many studies on microaggressions tend to group LGBTQ
people together in ways that overlook or oversimplify the
diversity of the very heterogeneous population. Many of the
aforementioned studies lumped gay men with lesbian
women and labeled such samples as LGBTQ. Such practice
is detrimental because (a) gender and sexual orientation
differences may not be accounted for; (b) identities such
as transgender, genderqueer, or bisexual were regarded as
invisible; and (c) nuances in the ways that microaggressions
manifest may not be fully explored or understood. Further,
while categorizing groups into an umbrella might be helpful
or convenient in exploratory studies, results can continue to
marginalize certain subgroups that are often invisible or
understudied. For example, in grouping lesbian women,
bisexual women, and queer women into homogenous sam-
ples of “LGBQ women,” researchers fail to recognize the
differences that may occur based on sexual orientation iden-
tities, while also promoting the notion that there are no
differences between queer identities and those who identify
as lesbian or bisexual.
Gender nonconformity is another area of research that
needs to be explored much further. While there have been
significant gains in understanding the experiences of trans-
gender people, researchers still tend to concentrate on rigid
binary conceptualizations of gender. Transgender men and
transgender women are often overrepresented in samples
focusing on gender identity and microaggressions, while
those who identify as genderqueer or gender nonconform-
ing are not. Perhaps a qualitative study with genderqueer
or gender-nonconforming participants that models the
initial studies (e.g., Capodilupo et al., 2010; Nadal, Issa,
et al., 2011; Sue et al. 2010) would be helpful in uncover-
ing some of the major types of microaggressions that
genderqueer and GNC people encounter. While it is prob-
able that many of the themes may be similar to those
experienced by LGBQ people and transgender people, it
is also likely that new themes and nuanced differences
would emerge. Similarly, understanding “queerness” as a
unique identity (independent from lesbian, gay, and bisex-
ual sexual orientations) would benefit future research.
While many queer people might also identify as lesbian,
gay, or bisexual, there are many young people who identify
exclusively as queer. As a result, it would be appropriate
for microaggression studies to focus on queer people as a
unique group, particularly given that failure to do so pro-
motes queer invisibility and may thus represent a micro-
aggression in itself.
In addition, the pool of research on intersectional
microaggressions warrants substantial expansion and ela-
boration. While some research has begun to unveil the
ways that holding multiple marginalized identities affects
one’s experiences with microaggressions, more research
needs to emerge. It appears there is some nascent research
on experiences of intersectional identities with race, gen-
der, and sexual orientation. However, it would be crucial
to explore other identities that are often less studied or in
which a person has multiple marginalized identities. For
instance, microaggression studies examining gender iden-
tity with race and disability (e.g., concentrating on trans-
gender people of color with disabilities) would be helpful
in understanding experiences of individuals who have
very little privilege in their lives and are likely to encoun-
ter microaggressions at both systemic and interpersonal
levels.
Relatedly, within-group microaggressions would also be
a fascinating area of research, but such investigations
remain sparse. One recommendation would be to examine
how the intersection between gender presentation and sex-
ual orientation may impact the types of microaggressions
individuals experience; for instance, it has been reported
that gay men who are the “bottoms,” or recipients of anal
intercourse, are also stereotyped to be more feminine, and
that certain racial groups are presumed to take on certain
sexual roles (Lick & Johnson, 2015). One study found that
Asian American gay men are often presumed to be “bot-
toms” because of their racial group—a microaggression
that might be classified as both racist and misogynist
(Han, 2009). Similarly, among lesbian circles exists the
concept of femmephobia, or the notion that being feminine
is bad, makes one less of a lesbian, or both (Blair &
Hoskin, 2014). While Nadal, Wong, and colleagues
(2011) noted that bisexual women reported microaggres-
sions from lesbians (and vice versa), future studies should
503
 NADAL, WHITMAN, DAVIS, ERAZO, AND DAVIDOFF
further examine how within-group microaggressions may
impact LGBTQ people in ways that are both similar to and
different from microaggressions from heterosexual, cisgen-
der sources.
The construct of systemic microaggressions against
LGBTQ people is understudied and can be investigated
further. While two studies (Nadal, Issa, et al., 2011; Nadal,
Skolnik, & Wong, 2012) highlighted the types of microag-
gressions that affect LGBTQ people on systemic and envir-
onmental levels, additional studies in the health industry and
the educational system speak to interpersonal and systemic
microaggressive experiences. First, in a national study of
LGBTQ physicians (in which 99% were cisgender), 22%
reported being socially ostracized; 15% reported that a
colleague harassed them due to their sexual orientation or
gender identity; 10% reported a heterosexual colleague
denied them referrals; and 65% reported hearing derogatory
comments about LGBTQ people (Eliason, Dibble, &
Robertson, 2011). Further, about one-third (34%) reported
witnessing discriminatory treatment of an LGBT-identified
patient, and 39% reported witnessing discriminatory treat-
ment of an LGBT-identified patient’s partner (Eliason et al.,
2011). In a national school survey published by the Gay,
Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN, 2013)
researchers found that 85% of LGBTQ students reported
experiencing verbal harassment at school in the past year
because of their sexual orientation, and 19% reported
receiving dress-code violations because of their gender
expression. More than half of the students who experienced
harassment did not report the incident(s) to teachers or
administrators, believing that little to no action would be
taken or that the situation would get worse (e.g., that they
would experience retaliation, victim blaming, or revictimi-
zation). Interpersonal microaggressions were evident in both
aforementioned studies (e.g., a physician socially ostraciz-
ing an LGBTQ colleague; a student who is told not to dress
a certain way because it does not match traditional gender
norms). In addition, both studies indicated the important
role of systemic issues: (a) the structure of the two institu-
tions is embedded in heterosexual or cisgender norms (i.e.,
dress codes are based on heterosexual or cisgender stan-
dards or norms) and (b) there are no universal or standard
protocols for addressing microaggressions (e.g., physicians
are not regularly disciplined or discouraged from being
heterosexist or transphobic). Failure to address systemic
microaggressions allows for their perpetuation, and thus
the perpetuation of related interpersonal microaggressions
and associated negative impacts on the psychological wel-
fare of LGBTQ people.
Further, it is important to recognize how some environ-
ments, while not necessarily vocally or overtly heterosexist
or transphobic, might negatively affect LGBTQ people. One
example is the research that explored how state marriage
equality laws affected people’s mental health, finding that
LGBTQ people in states where same-sex marriage was legal
tended to have better mental health outcomes than those
who resided in states where same-sex marriage was not
504
legal (Hatzenbuehler, McLaughlin, Keyes, & Hasin, 2010).
Although same-sex marriage is now legal on a federal level
and across all 50 states, perhaps this type of research can
continue, examining other laws and policies (e.g., whether a
state has employment nondiscrimination laws that protect
individuals based on sexual orientation or gender identity).
Another research direction that could be very helpful
would be to examine regional differences and how geo-
graphic location and space can affect people’s experiences
with microaggressions. Many of the aforementioned
LGBTQ microaggression studies were conducted primarily
in major metropolitan areas, perhaps due to researchers’
locations or because of the higher density of LGBTQ people
in those regions. Given this, it would be worthwhile to
investigate how microaggressions may manifest differen-
tially across and between urban, rural, and suburban areas,
in addition to differences on the West and East Coasts, the
Midwest, the South, Alaska, Hawaii, and so forth. In this
same vein, it would be crucial to explore applicability of
microaggression theory to other countries outside of the
United States. Such investigations would provide informa-
tion not just regarding Western countries with similar eco-
nomic structures but also pertaining to nonindustrialized
countries with different cultural norms, histories of
LGBTQ people, and exposure to out LGBTQ people.
Finally, it appears there is a growing amount of literature
on the ways that LGBTQ people cope with, and are resilient
in reaction to, microaggressions. Because most of this lit-
erature appears to be more qualitative in nature (e.g., Nadal,
Davidoff, et al., 2014; Nadal, Wong, et al., 2011), future
quantitative research should examine how effective certain
coping mechanisms are in relation to microaggressions. In
addition, future researchers may explore how resilience is
often built in response to microaggressive experiences.
Thus, while microaggressions and their multitude of nega-
tive implications must continue to be addressed, and while
society must take steps to minimize microaggressions (indi-
vidual, intersectional, interpersonal, and systemic), future
scholars may also be interested in investigating the impact
of microaggressions on constructs such as resilience and
self-efficacy.
References
Balsam, K. F., Molina, Y., Beadnell, B., Simoni, J., & Walters, K. (2011).
Measuring multiple minority stress: The LGBTQ People of Color
Microaggressions Scale. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority
Psychology, 17, 163–174. doi:10.1037/a0023244
Blair, K. L., & Hoskin, R. A. (2014). Experiences of femme identity:
Coming out, invisibility, and femmephobia. Psychology and
Sexuality, 6, 229–244. doi:10.1080/19419899.2014.921860
Blume, A. W., Lovato, L. V., Thyken, B. N., & Denny, N. (2012). The
relationship of microaggressions with alcohol use and anxiety among
ethnic minority college students in a historically White institution.
Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 18, 45–54.
doi:10.1037/a0025457
Bostwick, W., & Hequembourg, A. (2014). “Just a little hint”: Bisexual-
specific microaggressions and their connection to epistemic injustices.
 MICROAGGRESSIONS AND LGBTQ PEOPLE
Culture, Health, and Sexuality, 16, 488–503. doi:10.1080/
13691058.2014.889754
Bowleg, L. (2013). “Once you’ve blended the cake, you can’t take the parts
back to the main ingredients”: Black gay and bisexual men’s descrip-
tions and experiences of intersectionality. Sex Roles: A Journal of
Research, 68, 754–767. doi:10.1007/s11199-012-0152-4
Burke, S. E., Dovidio, J. F., Przedworski, J. M., Hardeman, R. R., Perry, S.
P., Phelan, S. M., … Van Ryn, M. (2015). Do contact and empathy
mitigate bias against gay and lesbian people among heterosexual first-
year medical students? A report from the Medical Student CHANGE
Study. Academic Medicine, 90, 645–651. doi:10.1097/
ACM.0000000000000661
Burn, S. M., Kadlec, K., & Rexer, R. (2005). Effects of subtle heterosexism
on gays, lesbians, and bisexuals. Journal of Homosexuality, 49, 23–38.
doi:10.1300/J082v49n02_02
Capodilupo, C., Nadal, K., Corman, L., Hamit, S., Lyons, O., & Weinberg,
A. (2010). The manifestation of gender microaggressions. In D. Sue
(Ed.), Microaggressions and marginality: Manifestation, dynamics,
and impact (pp. 193–216). New York, NY: Wiley.
Chang, T. K., & Chung, Y. B. (2015). Transgender microaggressions:
Complexity of the heterogeneity of transgender identities. Journal of
LGBT Issues in Counseling, 9, 217–234. doi:10.1080/
15538605.2015.1068146
Cowan, G., Heiple, B., Marquez, C., Khatchadourian, D., & McNevin,
M. (2005). Heterosexuals’ attitudes toward hate crimes and hate
speech against gays and lesbians: Old-fashioned and modern het-
erosexism. Journal of Homosexuality, 49, 67–82. doi:10.1300/
J082v49n02_04
Deitz, C. E. (2015). Sexual orientation microaggressions and psychological
well-being: A mediational model (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved
from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (Accession Order
No. 3705170).
Denhart, H. (2008). Deconstructing barriers: Perceptions of students labeled
with learning disabilities in higher education. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 41, 483–497. doi:10.1177/0022219408321151
Donatone, B., & Rachlin, K. (2013). An intake template for transgender,
transsexual, genderqueer, gender nonconforming, and gender variant
college students seeking mental health services. Journal of College
Student Psychotherapy, 27, 200–211. doi:10.1080/87568225.2013.
798221
Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (2000). Aversive racism and selective
decisions: 1989–1999. Psychological Science, 11, 315–319.
doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00262
Eliason, M. J., Dibble, S. L., & Robertson, P. A. (2011). Lesbian, gay,
bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) physicians’ experiences in the
workplace. Journal of Homosexuality, 58, 1355–1371. doi:10.1080/
00918369.2011.614902
Elizabeth, A. (2013). Challenging the binary: Sexual identity that is not
duality. Journal of Bisexuality, 13, 329–337. doi:10.1080/
15299716.2013.813421
Fassinger, R. E., Arseneau, J. R., Bieschke, K. J., Perez, R. M., & DeBord,
K. A. (2007). “I’d rather get wet than be under that umbrella”:
Differentiating the experiences and identities of lesbian, gay, bisexual,
and transgender people. In Handbook of counseling and psychother-
apy with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender clients (2nd ed., pp.
19–49). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Follins, L. D. (2014). Young Black and Latino gay men’s experiences with
racial microaggressions. In S. C. Howard (Ed.), Critical articulations
of race, gender, and sexual orientation (pp. 47–63). Lanham, MD:
Lexington Books.
Galupo, M. P., Henise, S. B., & Davis, K. S. (2014). Transgender microag-
gressions in the context of friendship: Patterns of experience across
friends’ sexual orientation and gender identity. Psychology of Sexual
Orientation and Gender Diversity, 1, 461–470. doi:10.1037/sgd0000075
Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network. (2013). National School
Climate Survey. Retrieved from http://www.glsen.org/nscs
Gonzales, L., Davidoff, K. C., Nadal, K. L., & Yanos, P. T. (2015).
Microaggressions experienced by people with mental illness: An
exploratory study. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 38, 234–241.
doi:10.1037/prj0000096
Greenwald, A. G., Poehlman, T. A., Uhlmann, E. L., & Banaji, M. R.
(2009). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: III.
Meta-analysis of predictive validity. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 97, 17–41. doi:10.1037/a0015575
Han, C. (2009). Chopsticks don’t make it culturally competent: Addressing
larger issues for HIV prevention among gay, bisexual, and queer Asian
Pacific Islander men. Health and Social Work, 34, 273–281.
doi:10.1093/hsw/34.4.273
Hatzenbuehler, M. L., McLaughlin, K. A., Keyes, K. M., & Hasin, D. S.
(2010). The impact of institutional discrimination on psychiatric dis-
orders in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: A prospective study.
American Journal of Public Health, 100, 452–459. doi:10.2105/
AJPH.2009.168815
Herek, G. M. (2000). The psychology of sexual prejudice. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 19–22. doi:10.1111/
cdir.2000.9.issue-1
Herek, G. M. (2007). Confronting sexual stigma and prejudice: Theory and
practice. Journal of Social Issues, 63, 905–925. doi:10.1111/
josi.2007.63.issue-4
Hill, D. B., & Willoughby, B. L. B. (2005). The development and valida-
tion of the Genderism and Transphobia Scale. Sex Roles, 53, 531–544.
doi:10.1007/s11199-005-7140-x
Huebner, D. M., & Davis, M. C. (2007). Perceived antigay discrimination
and physical health outcomes. Health Psychology, 26, 627–634.
doi:10.1037/0278-6133.26.5.627
Jost, J. T., Rudman, L. A., Blair, I. V., Carney, D. R., Dasgupta, N., Glaser,
J., & Hardin, C. D. (2009). The existence of implicit bias is beyond
reasonable doubt: A refutation of ideological and methodological
objections and executive summary of ten studies that no manager
should ignore. Research in Organizational Behavior, 29, 39–69.
doi:10.1016/j.riob.2009.10.001
Keller, R. M., & Galgay, C. E. (2010). Microaggressive experiences of
people with disabilities. In D. W. Sue (Ed.), Microaggressions and
marginality: Manifestation, dynamics, and impact (pp. 241–268). New
York, NY: Wiley & Sons.
Kuper, L. E., Nussbaum, R., & Mustanski, B. (2011). Exploring the
diversity of gender and sexual orientation identities in an online
sample of transgender individuals. Journal of Sex Research, 49,
244–254. doi:10.1080/00224499.2011.596954
Lick, D. J., & Johnson, K. L. (2015). Intersecting race and gender cues are
associated with perceptions of gay men’s preferred sexual roles.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44, 1471–1481. doi:10.1007/s10508-
014-0472-2
MacDonald, K. (2013). Sexual orientation microaggressions in psychother-
apy (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and
Theses database. (Accession Order No. 3598433)
Macionis, J. J., & Gerber, L. M. (2011). Sociology (7th ed.). Toronto,
Ontario, Canada: Pearson Canada.
Malebranche, D. J., Fields, E. L., Bryant, L. O., & Harper, S. R.
(2009). Masculine socialization and sexual risk behaviors among
black men who have sex with men: A qualitative exploration.
Men and Masculinities, 12, 90–112. doi:10.1177/1097184X073
09504
McCabe, P. C., Dragowski, E. A., & Rubinson, F. (2013). What is homo-
phobic bias anyway? Defining and recognizing microaggressions and
harassment of LGBTQ youth. Journal of School Violence, 12, 7–26.
doi:10.1080/15388220.2012.731664
McCarthy, L. (2003). What about the “T”? Is multicultural education ready
to address transgender issues? Multicultural Perspectives, 5, 46–48.
doi:10.1207/S15327892MCP0504_11
Meyer, I. H. (1995). Minority stress and mental health in gay men. Journal
of Health and Social Behavior, 36, 38–56. doi:10.2307/2137286
Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian,
gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evi-
dence. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 674–697. doi:10.1037/0033-
2909.129.5.674
505
 NADAL, WHITMAN, DAVIS, ERAZO, AND DAVIDOFF
Mulick, P. S., & Wright, L. W. Jr., (2002). Examining the existence of
biphobia in the heterosexual and homosexual populations. Journal of
Bisexuality, 2, 45–64. doi:10.1300/J159v02n04_03
Mustanski, B., Greene, G. J., Ryan, D., & Whitton, S. W. (2015). Feasibility,
acceptability, and initial efficacy of an online sexual health promotion
program for LGBT youth: The queer sex ed intervention. Journal of Sex
Research, 52, 220–230. doi:10.1080/00224499.2013.867924
Nadal, K., Griffin, K. E., Hamit, S., Leon, J., Tobio, M., & Rivera, D.
(2012). Subtle and overt forms of Islamophobia: Microaggressions
toward Muslim Americans. Journal of Muslim Mental Health, 6, 16–
37. doi:10.3998/jmmh.10381607.0006.203
Nadal, K. L. (2010). Gender microaggressions: Implications for mental health.
In M. A. Paludi (Ed.), Feminism and women’s rights worldwide, Vol. 2:
Mental and physical health (pp. 155–175). Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.
Nadal, K. L. (2011). The Racial and Ethnic Microaggressions Scale
(REMS): Construction, reliability, and validity. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 58, 470–480. doi:10.1037/a0025193
Nadal, K. L. (2013). That’s so gay! Microaggressions and the lesbian, gay,
bisexual, and transgender community. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Nadal, K. L., & Corpus, M. J. H. (2013). “Tomboys” and “baklas”:
Experiences of lesbian and gay Filipino Americans. Asian American
Journal of Psychology, 4, 166–175. doi:10.1037/a0030168
Nadal, K. L., Davidoff, K. C., Davis, L. S., & Wong, Y. (2014). Emotional,
behavioral, and cognitive reactions to microaggressions: Transgender
perspectives. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity,
1, 72–81. doi:10.1037/sgd0000011
Nadal, K. L., Davidoff, K. C., Davis, L. S., Wong, Y., Marshall, D., &
McKenzie, V. (2015). Intersectional identities and microaggressions:
Influences of race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, and religion.
Qualitative Psychology, 2, 147–163. doi:10.1037/qup0000026
Nadal, K. L., Griffin, K. E., Wong, Y., Hamit, S., & Rasmus, M. (2014).
The impact of racial microaggressions on mental health: Counseling
implications for clients of color. Journal of Counseling and
Development, 92, 57–66. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.2014.00130.x
Nadal, K. L., Issa, M., Leon, J., Meterko, V., Wideman, M., & Wong, Y.
(2011). Sexual orientation microaggressions: “Death by a thousand
cuts” for lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth. Journal of LGBTQ Youth, 8,
234–259. doi:10.1080/19361653.2011.584204
Nadal, K. L., Issa, M.-A., Griffin, K., Hamit, S., & Lyons, O. (2010).
Religious microaggressions in the United States: Mental health impli-
cations for religious minority groups. In D. W. Sue (Ed.),
Microaggressions and Marginality: Manifestation, Dynamics, and
Impact (pp. 287–310). New York, NY: Wiley.
Nadal, K. L., Rivera, D. P., & Corpus, M. J. (2010). Sexual orientation and
transgender microaggressions in everyday life: Experiences of les-
bians, gays, bisexuals, and transgender individuals. In D. W. Sue
(Ed.), Microaggressions and marginality: Manifestation, dynamics,
and impact (pp. 217–240). New York, NY: Wiley.
Nadal, K. L., Skolnik, A., & Wong, Y. (2012). Interpersonal and systemic
microaggressions toward transgender people: Implications for counsel-
ing. Journal of LGBTQ Issues in Counseling, 6, 55–82. doi:10.1080/
15538605.2012.648583
Nadal, K. L., Wong, Y., Griffin, K. E., Davidoff, K., & Sriken, J. (2014).
The adverse impact of racial microaggressions on college students’
self-esteem. Journal of College Student Development, 55, 461–474.
doi:10.1353/csd.2014.0051
Nadal, K. L., Wong, Y., Issa, M., Meterko, V., Leon, J., & Wideman, M.
(2011). Sexual orientation microaggressions: Processes and coping
mechanisms for lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals. Journal of
LGBTQ Issues in Counseling, 5, 21–46. doi:10.1080/15538605.2011.
554606
Nadal, K. L., Wong, Y., Sriken, J., Griffin, K., & Fujii-Doe, W. (2015).
Racial microaggressions and Asian Americans: An exploratory study
on within-group differences and mental health. Asian American
Journal of Psychology, 6, 136–144. doi:10.1037/a0038058
Nicolas, G., & Skinner, A. (2012). “That’s so gay!” Priming the general
negative usage of the word gay increases implicit anti-gay bias.
506
Journal of Social Psychology, 152, 654–658. doi:10.1080/
00224545.2012.661803
Oshi-Ojuri, M. F. (2013). A quantitative look at the impact of microaggres-
sions on the intersecting identities of African American lesbians
(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and
Theses database. (Accession Order No. 3646190)
Owen, J., Tao, K., & Rodolfa, E. (2010). Microaggressions and women in
short-term psychotherapy: Initial evidence. The Counseling
Psychologist, 38(7), 923–946. doi:10.1177/0011000010376093
Pew Research Center. (2013). A survey of LGBTQ Americans: Attitudes,
experiences, and values in changing times. Retrieved from http://
www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/06/13/a-survey-of-lgbt-americans/
Pierce, C., Carew, J., Pierce-Gonzalez, D., & Willis, D. (1978). An experi-
ment in racism: TV commercials. In C. Pierce (Ed.), Television and
education (pp. 62–88). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Platt, L. A., & Lenzen, A. L. (2013). Sexual orientation microaggressions
and the experience of sexual minorities. Journal of Homosexuality, 60,
1011–1034. doi:10.1080/00918369.2013.774878
Poteat, V. P., & Spanierman, L. B. (2012). Modern racism attitudes among
White students: The role of dominance and authoritarianism and the
mediating effects of racial color-blindness. Journal of Social
Psychology, 152, 758–774. doi:10.1080/00224545.2012.700966
Robinson, J. (2014). Sexual orientation microaggressions and posttrau-
matic stress symptoms (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (Accession Order No.
1565243)
Sarno, E., & Wright, A. J. (2013). Homonegative microaggressions and
identity in bisexual men and women. Journal of Bisexuality, 13, 63–
81. doi:10.1080/15299716.2013.756677
Sears, D. O., & Henry, P. J. (2003). The origins of symbolic racism. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 259–275. doi:10.1037/
0022-3514.85.2.259
Shelton, K., & Delgado-Romero, E. A. (2013). Sexual orientation micro-
aggressions: The experience of lesbian, gay, bisexual and queer clients
in psychotherapy. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender
Diversity, 1, 59–70. doi:10.1037/2329-0382.1.S.59
Shulz, S. L. (2012). Gender identity: Pending? Identity development and
health care experiences of transmasculine/genderqueer identified indi-
viduals (Doctoral dissertation), University of California, Berkeley.
Retrieved from http://escholarship.org/uc/item/2ph0m6vr
Silverschanz, P., Cortina, L. M., Konik, J., & Magley, V. J. (2007). Slurs,
snubs, and queer jokes: Incidence and impact of heterosexist harass-
ment in academia. Sex Roles, 58, 179–191. doi:10.1007/s11199-007-
9329-7
Singh, A., Hays, D., & Watson, L. (2011). Strength in the face of
adversity: Resilience strategies of transgender individuals. Journal
of Counseling and Development, 89, 20–27. doi:10.1002/j.1556-
6678.2011.tb00057.x
Smith, L. C., & Shin, R. Q. (2014). Queer blindfolding: A case study on
difference “blindness” toward persons who identify as lesbian, gay,
bisexual, and transgender. Journal of Homosexuality, 61, 940–961.
doi:10.1080/00918369.2014.870846
Solórzano, D., Ceja, M., & Yosso, T. (2000). Critical race theory, racial micro-
aggressions, and campus racial climate: The experiences of African
American college students. Journal of Negro Education, 69, 60–73.
Steinman, E. (2011). Revisiting the invisibility of (male) bisexuality:
Grounding (queer) theory, centering bisexual absences, and examining
masculinities. Journal of Bisexuality, 11, 399–411. doi:10.1080/
15299716.2011.620460
Sue, D. W. (Ed.). (2010a). Microaggressions and marginality:
Manifestation, dynamics, and impact. New York, NY: Wiley.
Sue, D. W. (2010b). Microaggressions in everyday life: Race, gender, and
sexual orientation. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Sue, D. W., Bucceri, J. M., Lin, A. I., Nadal, K. L., & Torino, G. C. (2010).
Racial microaggressions and the Asian American experience. Asian
American Journal of Psychology, S(1), 88–101.
Sue, D. W., & Capodilupo, C. M. (2008). Racial, gender, and sexual
orientation microaggressions: Implications for counseling and
 MICROAGGRESSIONS AND LGBTQ PEOPLE
psychotherapy. In D. W. Sue (Ed.), Counseling the culturally diverse:
Theory and practice (5th ed., pp. 105–130). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Sue, D. W., Capodilupo, C. M., & Holder, A. M. B. (2008). Racial
microaggressions in the life experience of Black Americans.
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 39(3), 329–336.
doi:10.1037/0735-7028.39.3.329
Sue, D. W., Capodilupo, C. M., Torino, G. C., Bucceri, J. M., Holder, A. M.
B., Nadal, K. L., & Esquilin, M. (2007). Racial microaggressions in
everyday life: Implications for clinical practice. American
Psychologist, 62, 271–286. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.62.4.271
Swim, J. K., & Cohen, L. L. (1997). Overt, covert, and subtle sexism: A
comparison between the attitudes toward women and modern sexism
scales. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21(1), 103–118.
Tate, C. C., Ledbetter, J. N., & Youssef, C. P. (2013). A two-question method for
assessing gender categories in the social and medical sciences. Journal of
Sex Research, 50, 767–776. doi:10.1080/00224499.2012.690110
Testa, R. J., Habarth, J., Peta, J., Balsam, K., & Bockting, W. (2015).
Development of the Gender Minority Stress and Resilience Measure.
Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 2, 65–77.
doi:10.1037/sgd0000081
Walls, N. E. (2008). Toward a multidimensional understanding of hetero-
sexism: The changing nature of prejudice. Journal of Homosexuality,
55, 20–70. doi:10.1080/00918360802129287
Wang, J., Leu, J., & Shoda, Y. (2011). When the seemingly innocuous “stings”:
Racial microaggressions and their emotional consequences. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 1666–1678. doi:10.1177/
0146167211416130
Weaver, K. S., & Vescio, T. K. (2015). The justification of social inequality in
response to masculinity threats. Sex Roles, 72, 521–535. doi:10.1007/
s11199-015-0484-y
Wilson, P. A., Valera, P., Ventuneac, A., Balan, I., Rowe, M., & Carballo-
Diéguez, A. (2009). Race-based sexual stereotyping and sexual part-
nering among men who use the Internet to identify other men for
bareback sex. Journal of Sex Research, 46, 399–413. doi:10.1080/
00224490902846479
Wong, G., Derthick, A. O., David, E. J. R., Saw, A., & Okazaki, S. (2014).
The what, the why, and the how: A review of racial microaggressions
research in psychology. Race and Social Problems, 6, 181–200.
doi:10.1007/s12552-013-9107-9
Woodford, M. R., Howell, M. L., & Silverschanz, P. (2013). “That’s so gay”:
Heterosexual male undergraduates and the perpetuation of sexual orienta-
tion microaggressions on campus: “That’s so gay!” Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 28, 416–435. doi:10.1177/0886260512454719
Woodford, M. R., Howell, M. L., Silverschanz, P., & Yu, L. (2012).
“That’s so gay!” Examining the covariates of hearing this expression
among gay, lesbian, and bisexual college students. Journal of
American College Health, 60, 429–434. doi:10.1080/07448481.
2012.673519
Woodford, M. R., Krentzman, A. R., & Gattis, M. N. (2012). Alcohol and
drug use among sexual minority college students and their heterosex-
ual counterparts: The effects of experiencing and witnessing incivility
and hostility on campus. Substance Abuse Rehabilitation, 3, 11–23.
doi:10.2147/SAR.S26347
Woodford, M. R., Kulick, A., Sinco, B. R., & Hong, J. S. (2014). Contemporary
heterosexism on campus and psychological distress among LGBQ stu-
dents: The mediating role of self-acceptance. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 84, 519–529. doi:10.1037/ort0000015
Woodford, M. R., Paceley, M. S., Kulick, A., & Hong, J. S. (2015). The LGBQ
social climate matters: Policies, protests, and placards and psychological
well-being among LGBQ emerging adults. Journal of Gay and Lesbian
Social Services: Quarterly Journal of Community and Clinical Practice,
27, 116–141. doi:10.1080/10538720.2015.990334
Wright, A. J., & Wegner, R. T. (2012). Homonegative microaggressions
and their impact on LGB individuals: A measure validity study.
Journal of LGBTQ Issues in Counseling, 6, 34–54. doi:10.1080/
15538605.2012.648578
Wyss, S. E. (2004). “This was my hell”: The violence experienced by
gender non–conforming youth in U.S. high schools. International
Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 17, 709–730.
doi:10.1080/0951839042000253676
507
 NADAL, WHITMAN, DAVIS, ERAZO, AND DAVIDOFF

Appendix. Terms and Definitions Used as Keywords in

Search

Term Definition

Lesbian A woman whose sexual orientation is based on sexual attractions toward her own gender.
Gay An individual whose sexual orientation is based on sexual attractions toward his or her own gender. The term is usually reserved for gay
men; however, many women may also identify as gay.
Bisexual An individual whose sexual orientation is based on her or his sexual attractions toward various genders and the identity that is developed
based on these attractions.
Transgender An umbrella term that can be used to refer to anyone for whom the sex or gender assigned at birth is an incomplete or incorrect
description of self.
Queer An umbrella term used to identify individuals who are not heterosexual. While initially an anti-gay epithet, many individuals have
reclaimed the word as an empowering identity for people who may or may not also identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or
gender nonconforming.
Genderqueer An umbrella term used to identify gender identities that are not exclusively masculine or feminine; identities which are thus outside of
the gender binary.
Gender The trait or identity of not adhering to gender-role expectations.
nonconforming
Homophobia An emotional disgust toward individuals whose sexual orientation is homosexual; a fear of nonheterosexual people.
Heterosexism The negative attitudes, biases, and beliefs held by heterosexuals about nonheterosexual people.
Biphobia An emotional disgust toward individuals who do not conform to exclusive heterosexuality and/or homosexuality; a fear of bisexual
people.
Monosexism The belief, biases, or actions that promote monosexuality (either exclusive heterosexuality and/or homosexuality) as the only legitimate
or right sexual orientation.
Transphobia An emotional disgust toward individuals who do not conform to society’s gender expectations; a fear of transgender or gender-
nonconforming people.
Homonegativity A descriptive for any negative attitude toward homosexuality or other nonheterosexual identities.

508