Sexual and Gender Minority College Students’ Perceptions of Sexuality Blindfolding

Abstract

Sexuality blindfolding is a diversity philosophy in which discussions and recognition of LGBTQ identities are minimized with aims of reducing intergroup tension. To add to prior evidence showing the unintended harms of difference-evading diversity philosophies, the present research documented LGBTQ college students’ perceptions of sexuality blindfolding in undergraduate academic settings. Using thematic analysis on the qualitative entries of 45 LGBTQ college students in the U.S., the present research documented high disapproval of sexuality blindfolding, with students expressing that such approach a) causes identity invisibility and damage, b) signals that LGBTQ persons are deviant, and c) supports ignorance and maintains bias against LGBTQ people. Within these three major themes, additional subthemes indicate the perceived dangers of sexuality blindfolding for LGBTQ equality pursuits, LGBTQ student belonging, and academic success. Our inquiry also provided descriptive data on the frequency of participants’ personal experiences with sexuality blindfolding (e.g., encountered situations where LGBTQ identities were minimized, dismissed, or avoided when brought up). Overall, the study highlights sexuality blindfolding as having negative consequences for societal progress and LGBTQ students’ identity development, while contributing to broader discussions on diversity philosophies and state-level education policies that take an identity-conscious or difference-evading approach to diversity.

Introduction

Fostering a sense of identity pride underlies equal rights movements for sexual and gender minorities (SGM) in the U.S. Indeed, many SGM activists advocate for the celebration of differences amongst individuals within the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer/questioning (LGBTQ) community (e.g., Brown, 2016). However, such equal rights strides are often met with backlash from majority group members (Barbeauld et al., 2014), including current state policies that seek to ban discussions of disparities, history, and gender and sexual identity in education systems. Given the influx of initiatives that seek to minimize SGM visibility and to reduce discussion of identity-based differences (e.g., Florida’s “don’t say gay” bans; Goodrich, 2022), the need to understand the individual and societal impact of difference-evading approaches towards sexual orientation and gender identity is paramount.

Difference-evading approaches can be described as the antithesis to identity-consciousness (i.e., the idea that we should recognize, value, and understand the unique experiences granted to those with varied social identities; see Rosenthal & Levy, 2010). Critically, despite a large literature on difference-evading approaches to race (commonly referred to as racial colorblindness), minimal research has examined difference-evading approaches to sexual identity. Such focus has limited our understanding of how difference-evading approaches impact SGM individuals. For example, do SGM prefer their identities to be emphasized or avoided in the classroom? Do SGM believe difference-evasion towards SGM promotes or hinders social progress? To address this gap, the present study examines SGM college students’ perceptions of difference-evading approaches to sexual orientation in higher education settings with qualitative data analysis.¹

Are Difference-Evading Approaches Egalitarian?: The Case of Racial Color-Evasion

An overwhelming majority of research on difference-evading approaches has focused on the precursors and outcomes associated with racial color-evasion (i.e., avoiding recognizing, labeling, and discussing race and racial differences). While many agree that individuals should be judged by the content of their character instead of their race (see Mazzocco, 2017), civil rights activists (including Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.) believed that to achieve an egalitarian race-neutral society we first needed identity-conscious policies (e.g., affirmative action, reparations; see Berry, 1996). Thus, taking a difference-evading approach to SGM identities (including not protecting SGM students from sexual identity-based discrimination; see Renley et al., 2022) is argued to similarly prevent equality.

The egalitarian framing of racial color-evasion (i.e., treating everyone equally by disregarding race) continues to be co-opted to perpetuate racial inequality by producing ignorance of pervasive race-based disparities and bolstering backlash to necessary identity-conscious practices (Bonilla-Silva, 2006; Neville et al., 2013; Richeson & Nussbaum, 2004). Many have argued that promoting shared, rather than distinct, group identities can be beneficial to minority groups. For example, early gay rights movements in the U.S. argued that gay people were the same as heterosexual people in all of the important ways and used assimilationist tactics (e.g., selecting representatives who were less “visibly deviant” or less threatening to the mainstream society) to gain equal marriage rights (Esterberg, 1994; Olson & Boies, 2014).

Such a difference-evading strategy may have been a necessary approach to achieve basic rights for SGM community members before seeking further inclusion and equity. However, the majority of research on color-evasion finds that color-evasion is more harmful than beneficial to racial minority group members (see review Dovidio et al., 2003). In sum, despite arguments that color-evasion is egalitarian, this approach repeatedly serves to hinder progress and racial minorities’ feelings of inclusion in settings that use this approach (e.g., Purdie-Vaughns et al., 2007; Yi et al., 2020; Zou & Dickter, 2013).

Sexuality Blindfolding: Implications for Identity and Inclusion

Difference-evasion approaches to sexual orientation, referred to in the present research as sexuality blindfolding, argue that society should strategically choose to minimize labeling based on, and discussions of, sexual orientation (see Cipollina, 2022; Holmes IV, 2020). The choice to use “sexuality blindfolding” to refer to this ideology rather than other terminology (e.g., “sexuality-blindness” or “sexuality-evasion”) was complex given the need for an inclusive term that would not be interpreted incorrectly as part of a different literature on heterosexual peoples’ desires to avoid/evade sexual minorities because of a multitude of stereotypes (e.g., Morrison & Morrison, 2011). Conceptually, sexuality blindfolding suggests the user’s intentional choice to avoid recognition and discussion of sexual minorities’ identities and experiences (i.e., putting on a blindfold; Smith & Shin, 2014). The present manuscript and the research described under this subheading is to date the only research on difference-evading approaches towards sexual orientation.

People who endorse sexuality blindfolding may feel overtly negative toward SGM or have ambivalent or aversive attitudes towards SGM. Recent data suggests that cisgender and heterosexual (i.e., cishet) Americans’ beliefs that “We [as a society] would be better off if we talked about sexual orientation less” were associated with overtly negative attitudes towards SGM and lower support of SGM equality efforts (Cipollina & Sanchez, under review). Others with more positive attitudes towards SGM may believe that, with recent strides in LGBTQ equality, discussions of SGM identities are no longer necessary or beneficial as they are viewed as dividing rather than uniting people together (Kampler & Connell, 2013). Indeed, some cishet people may view separating or distancing SGM individuals from their marginalized identity as protective because “labeling” others as different renders them vulnerable to discrimination and bias (Angermeyer & Matschinger, 2003; Chaudoir et al., 2013). Some prior literature notes cishet individuals’ tendency to avoid discussions of sexual orientation with SGM (Cipollina et al., 2022), including doing so with the intent of benefiting SGM students (Smith, 2018).

Historically, SGM people have been sanctioned to not discuss their identities and relationships with others in the social sphere, out of fears of discrimination, violence, and job loss (e.g., the U.S. military’s “don’t ask don’t tell” policy). When organizations (like universities) or individuals use sexuality blindfolding they may be signaling a less inclusive attitude towards LGBTQ people, further exacerbating SGM peoples’ expectations of encountering prejudice if their SGM identity becomes known (see Hill, 2009). Sexuality blindfolding may also hinder identity development processes for SGM, by promoting identity concealment and reducing access to valuable identity-based support used as a source of developing identity pride. Together, such censorship of supportive identity-related discussions is likely to promote negative downstream outcomes for SGM students associated with identity concealment (e.g., poorer social relationships, well-being; Newheiser et al., 2017; Peck et al., 2014).

Moreover, when sexuality blindfolding is employed, heterosexual privilege, or differences in experience or opportunities based on sexual identity, may be disregarded or discredited (e.g., Nadal, 2016). SGM may view others’ hesitation in discussing SGM relationships or identities as indicative of prejudice (Conley et al., 2002; Platt & Lenzen, 2013). However, due to the combination of difference-evading sentiments being a part of anti-egalitarian pushes and common LGBTQ inclusion slogans (e.g., “love is love”), SGM may have mixed feelings towards sexuality blindfolding; such possibility is examined in the present study.

SGM Experiences at College

SGM students are at a higher risk of dropping out of college and of having poor mental health when compared to their cisgender and heterosexual student counterparts (McAfee et al., 2023). These academic and mental health disparities have been attributed to low feelings of belonging or connectedness at school, as well as SGM-specific stressors such as heterosexism or cissexism (i.e., prejudice directed at those who are not heterosexual or cisgender; e.g., Beemyn & Rankin, 2011; Marx et al., 2022). While for some SGM students college can provide opportunities to develop one’s SGM identity (e.g., coming out, finding sources of support and pride; Brandon-Friedman & Kim, 2016) for others the college setting can hinder identity development (e.g., promoting continued identity concealment) with psychological and health repercussions (Bailey & Strunk, 2018; Livingston et al., 2017).

Colleges can implement varied LGBTQ protective policies (e.g., explicit anti-LGBTQ discrimination policies) and practices (e.g., the creation of LGBTQ resource centers) to reduce the likelihood of SGM disparities on campus and promote more inclusive settings for SGM students. For instance, prior literature denotes the importance of gender-sexuality alliances in reducing SGM students’ experiences with more blatant prejudice and violence (e.g., Rankin et al., 2010) and in promoting positive attitudes toward SGM individuals among people across campus (e.g., Worthen, 2014). A more recent study denoted SGM high school students as “deploying their identity”, harnessing identity visibility and recognition, as way to challenge heteronormative and cisnormative school climates (Adelman et al., 2022). Such practices may increase cishet students’ familiarity and comfort with SGM identities while promoting a more inclusive setting wherein anti-LGBTQ attitudes and behaviors are explicitly unwelcomed.

Current State-Level Policies Impacting LGBTQ Students in Public Education

SGM high school and college students report experiencing higher rates of emotional, sexual, and physical violence than their cisgender and heterosexual peers (e.g., Borgogna, et al., 2023). For instance, gender minority (e.g., transgender and non-binary) high school students face recurrent misgendering and deadnaming at school (e.g., Renley et al., 2022), and an extensive literature documents sexual minority students’ experiences of commonplace slights and verbal harassment in high school and college (e.g., Swann et al., 2016). Such frequent encounters with heterosexism and cissexism have been documented to contribute to feelings of a hostile campus climate and are associated with negative academic outcomes, including taking a break or dropping out of college (e.g., Crane et al., 2022; Rankin et al., 2019). Such inequity and disparities in retention should evoke serious concern for educators and policymakers.

Critically, despite increasing protections for LGBTQ people in America over time, a backlash against LGBTQ equality and visibility is apparent in state-wide education policies across the United States. As of December 2022, only 18 states had state-wide policies that explicitly prohibit discrimination in education based on sexual orientation and gender identity (HRC, 2022). In 2022, 238 anti-LGBTQ bills were introduced, with many bills aimed at censoring discussions about LGBTQ identities in public schools and directly targeting gender minority youth (see Lavietes & Ramos, 2022). Research suggests that such anti-LGBTQ bills can increase anxiety and depression among SGM whether enacted into law or not (Horne et al., 2022) and that the absence of anti-LGBTQ laws at a state level is associated with better outcomes for SGM youth (e.g., Renley et al., 2022).

Many anti-LGBTQ policies across the U.S. in education involve explicit prohibition on discussing LGBTQ identities in a positive light (referred to as “no promo-homo” policies) or altogether as part of “parent’s rights” to control the content their children encounter (Rosky, 2022). These more restrictive policies, commonly referred to as “don’t say gay” policies, including Florida’s House Bill 1557, have been widely criticized as unconstitutional and as discriminatory because of the disparate impact on SGM and non-SGM youth. We suspect that growing anti-LGBTQ censorship will result in the increasing use of difference-evading approaches towards sexual orientation and gender diversity, following the idea that SGM individuals can function and receive a fair education without discussion or recognition of their SGM identity (Barbeauld, 2014).

Present Study

The present study is the first qualitative inquiry into SGM college students’ perceptions of sexuality blindfolding employed in college settings. Based on prior literature on racial color-evasion and published commentaries on the potential implications of “don’t say gay policies” (e.g., Bochicchio et al., 2023; Dhanani & Totton, 2023) in college settings and beyond, we had three research questions guiding the present study. First, do SGM college students view sexuality blindfolding as creating a climate where SGM should downplay their SGM identity (e.g., via identity concealment)? Second, do settings that utilize sexuality blindfolding signal to LGBTQ students that SGM identities are abnormal or the basis for exclusion? Third, is sexuality blindfolding at college viewed as producing lower awareness of discrimination against SGM (due to less frequent discussions of SGM identities and experiences) and as contributing to bias against SGM? To examine these questions, SGM college students reported on their attitude towards sexuality blindfolding at college (i.e., do they favor or disapprove of the strategy) and provided open-text responses describing their beliefs about sexuality blindfolding.

The present work also included an examination of descriptive data that may be relevant to perceptions of sexuality blindfolding. First, we assessed the relative frequency of sexuality blindfolding sentiments that occur on an interpersonal level with a brief checklist (e.g., “I’ve been in a conversation where someone made a comment like “I don’t see you as a gay/queer” person”). Second, we included a presentation on the LGBTQ-inclusive or threatening state-wide policies present in the state where participants attended college. With this descriptive data, we sought to provide basic insights into the varied forms of sexuality blindfolding that SGM college students encounter and draw inferences regarding how students’ beliefs and experiences of sexuality blindfolding may be related to state-level support for SGM students in education.

Methods

Participants

Forty-six LGBTQ-identified undergraduate students in the U.S. were recruited for a survey on sexuality blindfolding using Prolific Research. Participants in this study (recruited early 2023) participated in another longer quantitative survey conducted by the authors in late 2022, which asked SGM participants questions about experiences in college and mental health. Participants from that larger sample (Cipollina & Wang, unpublished data) were randomly selected to partake in a qualitative survey. The present manuscript focuses exclusively on SGM college students’ perceptions and experiences of SB and is the only planned manuscript using these qualitative data. One respondent provided open-text responses that were suspected of being copied and pasted from the internet and was removed from the analytic sample.

The analytic sample (N = 45) had a mean age of 23 (SD = 3.00, age range 18– 30), and 60% of the sample identified as women. Participants were diverse in terms of sexual orientation and racial/ethnic identity. See Table 1 for full demographic characteristics. More than half of the sample identified as bisexual or pansexual and 67% of the sample identified as monoracial White. Participants reported their “outness” about their sexual orientation to their social network with one item from Wilkerson and colleagues (2016) on a 1(Not at all out) to 5(Out to most or all people that I know) and were on average above the scale midpoint (M = 3.96, SD = 0.95) indicating a moderately out sample.²

Table 1.

Participant Demographics

	%
Sexual Orientation
Bisexual	53.3%
Lesbian or gay	22.2%
Pansexual	17.8%
Asexual	11.1%
Not listed above (e.g., queer, demisexual)	8.9%
Heterosexual	0%
Gender Identity
Cisgender Woman	60%
Cisgender Man	15.6%
Non-binary or gender non-conforming	20%
Transgender man	8.9%
Transgender woman	2.2%
Not listed (e.g., apathetic toward gender)	4.4%
Racial Identity
White/Caucasian	68.9%
Hispanic/Latino/a/x	17.8%
Black/African/Caribbean American	13.3%
South/East/Southeast Asian, or Asian American	4.4%
Mixed Race, Multi/Biracial	2.2%
Native American/ American Indian	0%
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander	0%

Note: Demographic percentages will not total 100% as participants were allowed multiple selections.

Procedures

Participants were informed that study procedures would include answering questions about their experiences at college and beliefs about how to make college settings more inclusive for LGBTQ students. Participants first reported their approval or disapproval of sexuality blindfolding after the following introduction to the concept.

Some people believe that minimizing the discussion of LGBTQ+ identities in college spaces can benefit all students (including LGBTQ students). In our research we refer to this approach as “sexuality blindness” or “sexuality blindfolding” Do you agree with this approach? Why or why not?

After providing their opinion on sexuality blindfolding, participants were asked additional questions about their experiences with sexuality blindfolding including our checklist of sexuality blindfolding experiences over the past year (10 yes/no/not sure). The checklist of sexuality blindfolding experiences was created by the authors of this manuscript based on prior commentary and qualitative literature on sexuality blindfolding (Holmes IV, 2020; Smith, 2018; Smith & Shin, 2014) and insights from the first authors’ data on this topic (Cipollina, 2022; Cipollina & Sanchez, under review). Finally, participants were asked to provide the name of the current college which was used for state-level inquiry described below. At the end of their survey participation, about 5–10 minutes, participants were compensated $3.50 for their time.

Description of Qualitative Data

The open-text entries analyzed in the present study ranged from 15 to 125 words (M = 49.33) with a median word count of 45 words per entry. Other open-response questions asked in this survey not detailed in this manuscript included how participants cope with sexuality blindfolding when they experience it, as well as suggestions they would have for other LGBTQ students experiencing sexuality blindfolding. We are confident that the participants in this study provided quality responses given the screening procedures included in this study and the larger study which these participants were drawn from. Specifically, Prolific research (our recruitment platform) utilizes multiple screening questions to have a participant pool that provides high-quality data (see also Douglas et al., 2023 for comparisons in data quality across commonly used online recruitment platforms). Respondents who provided low-effort responses in the authors’ initial larger study, as indexed by multiple missed attention check questions (Cipollina & Wang, unpublished data), were not recruited to be a part of this qualitative study. While participants in this study were recruited as part of a larger quantitative study assessing their mental health and other identity factors as related to their college experiences, this manuscript is the only planned manuscript using this qualitative dataset.

Author Positionality

The authors of this manuscript are social psychologists who often utilize experimental and quantitative research methods to document mechanisms through which societal prejudice impacts the health and belonging of people from varied marginalized groups. The first author is well-versed in the literature on difference-evasion specifically regarding how varied diversity ideologies are associated with prejudicial attitudes and negative outcomes for marginalized people. The first author’s prior awareness of the dangers of difference-evasion guided the researchers’ pursuit of research on this topic. Both authors have utilized qualitative and quantitative data in prior publications. Both authors identify as queer women and have personally encountered sexuality blindfolding. It is possible that their backgrounds as queer women guided their review of participants’ qualitative text and that perhaps their queer background helped in the interpretation of the meaning behind participant sentiments. The authors did not disclose their sexual orientation or political viewpoints with the participants in this survey though it is possible that participants made assumptions based on the affiliation of the researchers listed in the consent form. The qualitative text was coded by the first author and a research assistant who was naïve to the concept of sexuality blindfolding before thematic coding.

Analytic Strategy

Coding of Qualitative Data

First, all entries were coded as agreeing/supporting or disagreeing/not supporting sexuality blindfolding used in college settings. This coding directly pulled the participants’ response to the qualitative prompt. Then, open-text responses were coded with reflexive thematic analysis, a widely used method of interpreting patterns found in qualitative data (Braun & Clarke, 2006; 2019). Reflextive thematic analysis recognizes the impact of researchers’ subjectivity in the qualitative research process and is flexible with respect to the process through which initial “themes” are generated from the data (Clarke & Braun, 2019). Researchers’ subjectivity is viewed as an asset to theme development process as themes identified in thematic analysis are derived from recognized patterns in the data (e.g., terminology repetitively used) alongside the researchers’ underlying assumptions of meaning from the text (i.e., identifying latent meaning).

Our generation of themes began when the first author read a subset of 50% of participant entries. She generated common organizing concepts (e.g., “sexuality blindfolding maintains bias”) and developed a list of minor themes that fell into the “buckets” of these larger organizing concepts (i.e., minor themes within major themes). A second coder reviewed all of the participant entries with the first author’s identified themes to collaboratively and reflexively code the data, identifying any additional themes or overlapping themes that could aid in theme identification. Then, together, the two coders reviewed all codes, discussed distinctness within subthemes and agreed on their conceptual fit into major themes.

Descriptive Data Plans

Participants were asked questions about their experiences with sexuality blindfolding over the past year using a checklist. We examined the frequency of each sexuality blindfolding checklist item and calculated the average number of sexuality blindfolding experiences amongst our participants. No inferential analyses using this descriptive data were planned given the small sample size.

Participants were also asked to provide the name of their college in our survey. This information was used to gather descriptive data surrounding participants’ LGBTQ-friendly state-level context using codings supplied by the Human Rights Campaign (2022) on the presence and absence of LGBTQ-affirming and restrictive policies for youth in education. Thirty-three participants (~73%) provided the name of their college and we recoded each college into its respective state. The U.S. states with the highest representation in these data were Florida, Illinois, Arizona, and California (ns = 4 to 3). Participants were spread across 19 U.S. states that varied in the presence and absence of state-wide laws protecting LGBTQ students. Using codings provided by the Human Rights Campaign (2022), 45.5% (n = 15) of participants’ colleges were within states that had anti-LGBTQ laws affecting LGBTQ youth in education spaces (e.g., transgender bathroom or sports bans, restrictions on LGBTQ topics in the classroom). An additional 33.3% (n = 11), were in states with partial LGBTQ protective laws (i.e., some protective policies and no explicitly anti-LGBTQ policies in education settings). States coded as being fully protective of LGBTQ students in education settings were rare; only 18.2% (n = 6) of participants were from these states. Critically, this coding scheme is not specific to participants’ college of attendance; rather it is a broader reflection of the state-wide attitudes and protections in place for LGBTQ students within them.

Results

Qualitative Data: Thematic Coding of Perceptions of Sexuality Blindfolding

Out of the 45 participants, 41 participants expressed disapproval of sexuality blindfolding. Three major drivers behind disapproval of sexuality blindfolding were identified, each with four to seven identified subthemes or codes. See Table 2 for themes (i.e., major disapproval codes) and subthemes (i.e., subcodes). Responses from the four participants who approved of sexuality blindfolding as a diversity ideology at college did not fit into themes identified among the participants who disapproved of sexuality blindfolding.

Table 2.

Thematic Themes and Subthemes with Descriptions

Theme	Description
Identity Invisibility and Damage	Sexuality blindfolding reduces acknowledgment of SGM people/identities at a detriment to SGM growth and equity.
- Promotes identity concealment	- Sexuality blindfolding forces or encourages sexual identity concealment and/or limits conversations related to one’s identity.
- Hinders identity development and exploration	- Sexuality blindfolding reduces space for identity development or exploration.
- Reduces queer presence	- Sexuality blindfolding minimizes perceptions of the size of the LGBTQ community or “erases” them from spaces.
- Discriminatory damage	- Sexuality blindfolding as a diversity ideology places an unjust burden on SGM people.
- Damage by heteronormative Assumptions	- Sexuality blindfolding would increase SGM people’s exposure to heterosexism or cissexism in a heteronormative culture.
Signals Deviance and Exclusion	Sexuality blindfolding suggests that SGM identities are abnormal, deviant, and not to be included.
- Abnormal and not truly included	- Sexuality blindfolding reduces the inclusion of the LGBTQ community by signaling deviance or unwelcomeness.
- Promotes heteronormativity	- Sexuality blindfolding promotes a heteronormative culture/view.
- Signals deviance	- Sexuality blindfolding signals that SGM identities are abnormal or wrong/deviant.
- Could promote normalcy	- Discussing SGM identities helps make SGM identities more normal in society or reduces stigma.
Supports Ignorance and Maintains Bias	Support of sexuality blindfolding reduces awareness of current and past LGBTQ discrimination and maintains bias towards LGBTQ folx.
- Reduces awareness of discrimination	- Sexuality blindfolding reduces awareness of current discrimination towards SGM people.
- Minimizes history	- Sexuality blindfolding reduces awareness of important queer history equality strides or plights.
- Hinders progress/ is an unfit ideal	- Sexuality blindfolding is an egalitarian ideal that hinders societal progress by promoting ignorance.
- Likened to racial color-evasion	- Sexuality blindfolding resembles “racial colorblindness” (expressed as a failing/failed diversity strategy).
- Discriminatory support	- Supporters of sexuality blindfolding are prejudiced, and policies/organizations that use sexuality blindfolding are discriminatory.
- Maintains prejudice	- Lack of sanctioned discussions about SGM identities increases unchallenged misinformation maintaining bias towards LGBTQ folx.
- Bias by a new name	- Sexuality blindfolding is a “repackaged” way to perpetuate bias against SGM people (or is really driven by aversive attitudes/discomfort).

Approving Sexuality Blindfolding

The four supporters of sexuality blindfolding touched on beliefs about the appropriateness of sexuality or gender identity discussions in college spaces, its egalitarian framing, and personal privacy preferences. For instance, one participant stated that they don’t think discussions of sexual orientation or identity are relevant to their courses at college, expressing that they “do not understand what value this information could provide in pursuit of the academic sciences”. They further explained that they “could see some value with introducing this information in a freshman orientation course, because there is an expectation that the course content is focused on self-introductions” (P#35).

Another participant stated, “I feel like sexual blindness should be embraced, due to the fact that we should see everybody equally and not have any favorites. Which means that we need to help make LGBT+ feel like their sexuality and gender identity doesn’t matter and they are judged by their character” (P#39). Another states, “I think when we talk about being LGBTQ on a college campus it seems as if it splits heterosexual students from LGBTQ students” (P#33). These participants’ perspective reflects prior literature in support of difference-evasion as a method to increase equality by reducing the discussion of differences between people who do and do not identify as LGBTQ. The fourth participant who agreed with sexuality blindfolding believed that sexuality should be a private matter but that all LGBTQ identities should be respected, expressing “One’s sexuality should only matter to themselves and their partner(s), and that’s it. No one else needs to know that much information” (P#31).

Disapproval Theme 1: Identity Invisibility and Damage

Many participants expressed that sexuality blindfolding a) promotes identity concealment, b) reduces queer presence, c) hinders identity development/exploration, d) is discriminatory in its damage to LGBTQ people, and e) causes damage to LGBTQ people through heteronormative assumptions. These five identified subthemes within the identity invisibility and damage theme all focused on direct identity damages to LGBTQ people (rather than to progress pursuits as mentioned in the theme of Supporting Ignorance) and highlight how sexuality blindfolding serves to reduce SGM identification and visibility.

One participant expressed “I believe that this [sexuality blindfolding] ostracizes people who identify as LGBTQ+ and creates an environment where they will not feel free to be themselves and speak freely about a major portion of their identities” (P#20). Participants’ responses highlighted how such an approach may make LGBTQ students or people feel “insecure”. For example, one participant highlighted that such an approach could prevent transgender and gender-diverse students from requesting that others use their preferred pronouns, thus damaging one’s ability to be authentic and have autonomy.

Another participant highlighted how sexuality blindfolding would have prevented their coming out and realization of their queer identity: “I came to college and was given the safe space to find out about my sexuality. That would not have happened with sexuality blindness” (P#24). Other participants’ responses reflected that college should be “a time to explore and gain community, especially for queer students”, suggesting that sexuality blindfolding “takes away the opportunity for all students to learn and grow”.

Other participants commented on how minimizing SGM conversations makes the LGBTQ community appear smaller than it already is, with some expressing “it basically erases us”. Critically, sexuality blindfolding was highlighted as increasing exposure to discrimination (through heteronormative assumptions and lack of visibility) while placing unjust burden on SGM students when compared to cishet students. For instance, one participant writes “Cis-straight people will inevitably, due to this idea [sexuality blindfolding], “forget” that queer/trans people are part of the space, and they may, whether accidentally or not, be incredibly offensive towards said groups” (P#17).

Participants also perceived sexuality blindfolding to not only promote concealment but to also place a discriminatory burden on LGBTQ students to not discuss their identity or related experiences. One participant stated…

I think that sexuality blindfolding forces LGBT+ students to silence a part of them that is integral to their identity. We don’t force straight or cisgender students to minimize the discussions of their sexuality/gender, so why should we force LGBT students to? Everyone should be allowed to freely discuss and be proud of who they are. – Participant number 9.

Other participants expressed an inherent paradox of sexuality blindfolding such that it would be impossible to reduce discussions of heterosexuality as cishet people would still be able to discuss their significant others, spouses, or heteronormative parents without reprieve. “Queer students should not have to worry about mentioning their identity” (P#25).

Disapproval Theme 2: Signals Deviance and Exclusion

Responses pertaining to sexuality blindfolding signaling a) sexual deviancy, b) perceptions of what sexualities are normal (common) or abnormal (rare), and c) the contexts’ inclusivity of SGM people were coded into a major theme of signaling deviance and exclusion. Codes under this theme primarily focused on broadly what the diversity ideology signals to society rather than its effects on LGBTQ or cishet people. For instance, one participant writes, “LGBT+ students need to be normalized, not brushed under the rug. The longer we don’t talk about LGBT+ people, the more “other” we become” (P#30) and another participant expresses that “Having open discussions about these topics helps foster an atmosphere of inclusivity and helps fight stigma” (P#8). This participant went on to state that “avoiding these discussions communicates that there is something to be ashamed of, or “wrong”, as if it shouldn’t be talked about” (P#8).

Further commenting on the dangers of this approach, one participant remarked…

“By minimizing discussion on such a heated topic as LGBTQ+ identities, it only ignores the fact that some individuals are fundamentally different than others and furthers the narrative that there is a “right” and “wrong” way to be (cishet being the norm, LGBT being repressed)” – Participant number 23.

Additional responses under this theme commented on sexuality blindfolding perpetuating a heteronormative culture where LGBTQ people do not belong. For example, one participant states “Avoiding conversations about LGBTQ+ identities usually means only acknowledging heterosexual relationships, and this can be incredibly harmful” (P#44). Expressing one way in which signaled heteronormativity can be harmful, another participant expressed that sexuality blindfolding makes them feel like “people would prefer me to just be heterosexual” and they continue stating “It [sexuality blindfolding] doesn’t make me feel like I don’t belong per say, but that I’m not FULLY included” (P#3). Participants expressed believing that sexuality discussions are necessary to promote the inclusion of sexual minorities. “I think that the best way to approach sexuality discussions is to show everyone that there is nothing wrong or different about LGBTQ sexualities” (P#15).

Disapproval Theme 3: Supports Ignorance and Maintains Bias

Participant responses comprising the theme of supporting ignorance and maintaining bias highlight how sexuality blindfolding a) reduces discussion of LGBTQ topics, b) perpetuates ignorance, c) is similar to racial color-evading ideologies, and d) hinders societal progress through a lack of awareness of current and past discrimination towards LGBTQ people. Participants whose responses were reflective of this category often commented on the biased and discriminatory underpinnings of this ideology, referring to sexuality blindfolding as a new way to maintain bias against LGBTQ people. This theme is distinct from the others as it focuses on the implications of sexuality blindfolding for LGBTQ progress pursuits, including by perpetuating a lack of discussion of anti-LGBTQ bias (current and prior).

Acknowledging the perhaps well-intending beliefs of some who endorse this ideology, one participant stated…

While I can understand where the theory behind this approach comes from, I do not completely agree with this approach. The bottom line is that people in the LGBTQ+ community experience discrimination because of their identity. If you minimize the discussion of LGBTQ+ identities, then you are also minimizing discussions of the things that people face because of their identity. As well as minimizing queer history and contributions. – Participant number seven.

Another participant noted, “It [sexuality blindfolding] erases LGBT struggles. A lot of people, especially straight, don’t know about LGBT history” (P#12). Aptly described, one participant writes “I do not agree with this approach [sexuality blindfolding] as it was the norm for a very long time, and only led to LGBTQ people being misunderstood, isolated, and generally marginalized. No one can tackle issues facing a community if they don’t know what those issues are” (P#43).

Participants discussed how sexuality blindfolding would be an egalitarian ideal, wherein all people are treated equally while mentioning how such an approach is unfit for our current society. For example, one participant states, “I think sexuality blindness is a nice thing we should aim to accomplish, but it doesn’t work in today’s world. …. I feel like minimizing sexuality in today’s climate allows people to bury their heads in the sand and ignore LGBTQ people” (P#28). Another participant describes sexuality blindfolding as “extremely hopeful” with it the potential to normalize LGBTQ experiences among cisgender and heterosexual circles while commenting that “the negatives” of the approach “outweigh the positives.”

Participants provided keen insights on the similarities between sexuality blindfolding and racial color-evasion with one participant commenting on well-intended remarks like “I don’t see color.” Another writes, “It [sexuality blindfolding] suffers from the same harmful background as being “colorblind” about race and ignores the very real issues specific to our differences and assumes people struggle equally. It is a very privileged way to see the world” (P#42).

Further drawing comparisons, one participant remarked…

“It [sexuality blindfolding] is very reminiscent of “race blindness” to me. We know that the individual differences that make each person unique (e.g., race, culture, religion, gender, sexuality) provide them with an individualized and deeply complex view of the world that is shared by no one else. When we refuse to acknowledge a part of what makes someone who they are because it makes some people uncomfortable, you are regarding intolerance and encouraging a shallow understanding of those around us.” – Participant number 14.

Avoiding discussions of LGBTQ identities is described by some participants as a way to increase unchallenged misinformation that maintains anti-LGBTQ bias. For example, one participant stated, “I think that hushing a certain topic creates a breeding ground for misinformation and malice. It is far better to talk about everything out in the open” (P#15). Other participants remarked on the biased intentions behind sexuality blindfolding; “It [sexuality blindfolding] sounds like censorship. Failing to recognize and acknowledge the lived experiences of marginalized peoples only benefits oppressors within these spaces” (P#22). Finally, another participant commented on sexuality blindfolding being used as a repackaging of more overt bias against LGBTQ people; they wrote, “Reword it however you want, but at the end of the day, you are just sweeping “uncomfortable” conversations under the rug” (P#3).

Analysis of Descriptive Data: Sexuality Blindfolding Experiences and State-level Codings

Descriptive statistics for the frequency of 10 different sexuality blindfolding experiences are presented in Table 3. These experiences were not limited to sexuality blindfolding experienced in college settings. The most common experience, reported by about 48% of participants, was feeling like someone else minimized their unique perspective as an LGBTQ person, followed by being told by someone else that they do not “see” or recognize that person’s SGM identity (43.5%). The least common experiences (about 30% of the sample experienced at some point over the last year) were having others (including friends and family) change the topic when they brought up their SGM identity or romantic relationships.

Table 3.

Prevalence of Interpersonal Sexuality Blindfolding Experiences Over the Past Year

Do you have a memory of any of the below happening to you in the past year?
	Yes	No/not sure
1) I’ve been in a conversation where someone minimized my unique perspective as an LGBTQ person	47.8%	52.2%
2) I’ve been in a conversation where someone made a comment like “I don’t see you as a gay/queer” person	43.5%	56.5%
3) I had a conversation with someone who believed it would be “best” for LGBTQ people if society would minimize discussion on the topic of sexual orientation	43.5%	56.5%
4) I’ve had someone close to me try to avoid my discussions of social issues that are important to LGBTQ+ people (e.g., healthcare access, gay rights)	41.3%	58.7%
5) I’ve had a conversation where I felt like the person I was talking to was trying to avoid asking me something about (or related to) my LGBTQ identity	39.1%	60.9%
6) I’ve been in a conversation where someone said something like “I was different than the general LGBTQ community” like being in the LGBTQ community is a bad thing	39.1%	60.9%
7) I’ve had a heterosexual person tell me that their daily experience is the same as mine	32.6%	67.4%
8) I’ve had a conversation where I felt like the person I was talking to was trying to avoid looking at me different because they knew I was LGBTQ	32.6%	67.4%
9) My close family or friends have tried to change the topic when I try to discuss my identity or romantic relationships/ partners	30.4%	69.6%
10) I’ve been in a conversation where someone changed the topic when I brought up my LGBTQ+ identity	30.4%	69.6%

On average, participants reported experiencing about four different sexuality blindfolding experience types (M = 3.82, SD = 3.15, range: 0–10). See Figure 1. Eight participants did not report experiencing any of the checklist items within the past year and four participants reported experiencing all ten of the checklist items. Agreement with sexuality blindfolding as a valuable diversity ideology may be distinct from experiences of sexuality blindfolding as the four participants who agreed with sexuality blindfolding as a diversity philosophy reported experiencing two to four of the checklist sexuality blindfolding items in the past year.

Figure 1.

Count of Sexuality Blindfolding Checklist Items Experienced

Table 4 presents HRC (2022) coding of participants’ college state alongside participants’ reported number of sexuality blindfolding experiences. For instance, three of the four participants who reported experiencing all 10 sexuality blindfolding experiences provided college information; these three participants all went to college in a state coded as having partial protections for LGBTQ youth in education (HRC, 2022). Participants who reported attending college in a state with fuller protections for LGBTQ rights in educational settings were not entirely protected from experiences of sexuality blindfolding. However, state-level policies likely impact students’ perceptions of sexuality blindfolding. For instance, three of the four participants who agreed with sexuality blindfolding in open-text responses provided their college-level data (attending colleges in Florida, Tennessee, and Kansas); the college states of these participants were all coded as having active state-wide policies restricting LGBTQ+ students’ rights in education settings in 2022 (HRC, 2022).

Table 4.

Participant Sexuality Blindfolding Count Presented with College State Codings

Participant #	SB Count	State HRC (2022) Coding
1	0	n/a
2	4	n/a
3	4	n/a
4	1	n/a
5	9	Anti-LGBTQ laws present
6	10	Partial
7	10	Partial
8	5	Full Protections
9	0	Partial
10	9	Partial
11	2	Full Protections
12	1	Full Protections
13	10	n/a
14	6	Anti-LGBTQ laws present
15	6	Full Protections
16	3	Anti-LGBTQ laws present
17	3	Anti-LGBTQ laws present
18	1	n/a
19	4	Anti-LGBTQ laws present
20	0	Partial
21	0	n/a
22	2	Anti-LGBTQ laws present
23	1	Full Protections
24	0	Partial
25	4	Anti-LGBTQ laws present
26	3	Anti-LGBTQ laws present
27	10	Partial
28	2	Partial
29	.0	n/a
30	5	n/a
31	2	Anti-LGBTQ laws present
32	4	Partial
33	3	Anti-LGBTQ laws present
34	0	Anti-LGBTQ laws present
35	4	Anti-LGBTQ laws present
36	5	Partial
37	0	Partial
38	6	Anti-LGBTQ laws present
39	3	n/a
40	8	n/a
41	1	Full Protections
42	7	Anti-LGBTQ laws present
43	6	Anti-LGBTQ laws present
44	2	n/a
45	6	Partial

Note: SB = sexuality blindfolding. SB count ranges from 0–10. “Partial” denotes partial protections for LGBTQ youth in education at the state level. Twelve participants did not provide college data.

Discussion

The present research documented high disapproval of sexuality blindfolding among SGM college students in the U.S., such that 41 out of 45 students disapproved of this approach. Three major themes were identified from participants’s responses using reflexive thematic analysis: 1) that sexuality blindfolding at college causes identity invisibility and damage, 2) that sexuality blindfolding signals that SGM people are deviant, and 3) that sexuality blindfolding supports ignorance and maintains bias against SGM people. Identified subthemes highlight that sexuality blindfolding is viewed by the college student sample as stating that SGM identities are deviant and something to hide, further promoting the invisibility of SGM individuals and identities. Participants expressed that sexuality blindfolding creates unjust burdens (e.g., heightening SGM identity concealment) that disadvantage SGM students’ inclusion, growth, and success at college.

Critically, the SGM student sample reflected on the dangers of sexuality blindfolding as a diversity approach in academic spaces and beyond. Participants’ narratives highlighted the difference-evading roots of sexuality blindfolding, referencing its commonalities with “racial colorblindness”, and criticized the approach’s egalitarian framing when they expressed multiple mechanisms through which sexuality blindfolding could promote ignorance and discrimination towards LGBTQ people. Indeed, when conversations about SGM people or disparities are minimized, cishet individuals are unlikely to gain familiarity with SGM experiences and, in turn, be unable to be productive allies (Stotzer, 2009). The present inquiry is thus the first to show SGM peoples’ awareness of difference-evasion as an anti-egalitarian tool used to silence discussions of inequity for people with varied marginalized identities.

Descriptive data on the frequency of participants’ personal experiences with sexuality blindfolding revealed that many LGBTQ-identified students encountered situations where their identities were minimized, dismissed, or avoided when brought up. About 30% of participants expressed that someone tried to change the conversation topic when they tried to discuss their SGM identity or romantic relationships, while nearly half of the participants experienced an instance where their unique perspective as an LGBTQ person was diminished. Among the sample of 45 participants, there was no discernable pattern linking open-text sexuality blindfolding perceptions to participants’ quantitative reports of the number of sexuality blindfolding checklist items they experienced in the past year. However, descriptive data suggests that state-level policies may impact students’ perceptions of sexuality blindfolding as 75% of participants who expressed favorable views of sexuality blindfolding attended colleges in states with state-wide policies restricting LGBTQ+ students’ rights in education settings.

Limitations

Due to the smaller sample of participants in the present study (N = 45) and the smaller number of participants who provided state-level information regarding the state of their college (n = 33), we were not able to draw conclusions about the relationships between state-level factors, perceptions of sexuality blindfolding, and the relative frequency of experiences of sexuality blindfolding. Critically, further research with a larger sample of participants should use quantitative approaches to link experiences of sexuality blindfolding to state-level indicators of bias towards SGM people, and key outcomes for SGM youth and college students (e.g., college attendance, well-being). Sexuality blindfolding, encountered as an ideology at an interpersonal and organizational level (e.g., at college) may prove to be a significant predictor of SGM students’ well-being and academic success, given the high degree of disapproval of sexuality blindfolding noted among participants’ open text responses.

The present work contained an inquiry into SGM college students’ beliefs about sexuality blindfolding in undergraduate educational settings, thus representing a relatively limited perspective into the broader SGM communities’ perceptions of sexuality blindfolding. Sexuality blindfolding is likely also experienced in the workplace, in healthcare, in K-12 education, and daily interactions. Importantly, the measurement used in the present work did not capture how many times these identity-minimizing and avoiding (i.e., sexuality blindfolding) occurrences occurred over the course of the past year, but rather their presence with a series of yes or no frequency items. These questions were also not specific to SGM’s experiences of sexuality blindfolding while at college. Experiences of sexuality blindfolding may be greater during college wherein one’s identity is being explored and discussed with others (often for the first time; see Hall et al., 2021), or that sexuality blindfolding may be less common, particularly in college settings with inclusive policies and safe spaces for LGBTQ+ students. Sexuality blindfolding may be commonly used, while potentially unbeknownst to the user, reducing SGM peoples’ ability to receive health-benefiting identity affirmations from others (see Busby et al., 2020). Future research should also explore perceptions of sexuality blindfolding among cishet samples or among education instructors and policy makers.

There are likely individual differences in preferences for sexuality blindfolding and circumstances under which sexuality blindfolding may protect SGM. Individual differences may be related to one’s specific SGM identity (e.g., transgender students having different experiences than gay students; see Pryor, 2015) or other psychological phenomena (e.g., low identification with one’s sexual identity). It is possible that the four participants were in favor of sexuality blindfolding at college felt less connected to their SGM identity as a core part of their self-concept. Further, experiences of sexuality blindfolding can be examined and conceptualized an additional form of microaggression experienced by SGMs (see Nadal et al., 2016) and as such should be further explored as a predictor of mental health and educational achievement outcomes. These further inquiries may find differential exposure to sexuality blindfolding among people within with LGBTQ community, such that certain subgroups of SGMs may encounter these experiences more frequently than others.

Critically, it is strongly possible that recent discussions surrounding the dangers of limiting discussions of sexual orientation and gender diversity in education settings (e.g., Barbeauld et al., 2014), in response to restrictive LGBTQ+ policies in educational settings, swayed students’ perceptions of sexuality blindfolding in college (present data collected June of 2023). As such, future research should examine circumstances under which SGM prefer identity consciousness (i.e., highlighting and discussing group identities and differences), or which components of identity consciousness are perceived as being more beneficial than others (e.g., classroom conversations about LGBTQ+ topics or more subtle recognition and respect of SGM contributions).

While the present study and thematic analysis of qualitative data were conducted and designed with best research practices in mind, the authors are aware that their beliefs about sexuality blindfolding may have shaped the framing of questions assessed throughout the study which may have had an impact on participants. However, our critical measure of assessing agreement or disagreement with sexuality blindfolding as a diversity ideology in college was worded to not make clear the researchers’ beliefs about this diversity approach. All coding of the qualitative data was conducted by an expert in the literature on difference-evading diversity approaches (1^st author) and a research assistant who was potentially a less biased coder.

Future Directions

Future research should consider collecting a broader sample with greater demographic, including age, diversity to best speak to the broader LGBTQ+ communities’ perspectives on the benefits or drawbacks associated with sexuality blindfolding. Additional forms of experiences with sexuality blindfolding, not assessed within the quantitative portion of the present research, could be generated through further qualitative inquiry or focus groups with SGM. Future research may benefit from an intersectional view on difference-evading philosophies by discussing sexuality blindfolding with SGM of color who may experience sexuality blindfolding and racial color evasion in their daily lives. This future research should also probe participants on different sexuality blindfolding experiences to determine which experiences incur a more negative psychological or social toll (e.g., causing psychological distress or reducing feelings of inclusion).

Future work needs to consider the impact of the timing of sexuality blindfolding statements on SGM’s perceptions of sexuality blindfolding. On one hand, sexuality-blind sentiments may signal inclusion to SGMs during disclosures (i.e., their identity is not viewed as impacting their relationship with the recipient) while, on the other hand, displaying that the recipient is less aware of SGM experiences and identity-affirming needs. This research may find that sexuality blindfolding is complicated when used during SGM identity disclosure experiences. Prior research in this area suggests that more identity-conscious responses to disclosure (e.g., “Thanks for sharing that part of yourself with me”) have benefits for disclosers, including signaling greater SGM-identity support when compared to more difference-evading types of responses that tried to minimize or ignore the disclosed identity (Cipollina et al., 2022). If disclosure recipients lean into the egalitarian narrative of sexuality blindfolding, they may unintentionally minimize the importance of the disclosers’ SGM identity. While identity-minimization was not examined as an experience specific to disclosure in this paper, identity-minimizing experiences (e.g., “I don’t see you as any different because you are gay/queer”) were experienced by about 43% of the present study’s participants in the last year. Future research could consider identifying the prevalence of sexuality blindfolding sentiments during identity disclosures as well as examining the outcomes associated with this type of disclosure response using longitudinal, dyadic, and quantitative data analysis.

In contexts where bias towards SGM is more prevalent, using difference-evasion may be viewed as helpful, as it has been demonstrated with racial minorities (see Apfelbaum et al., 2017). Indeed, as identity-consciousness can accentuate group differences, some research highlights that identity-conscious philosophies can backfire (see Dover et al., 2020), including by heightening stereotyping of minorities (e.g., Martin & Philips, 2017; Wilton et al., 2019; Wolsko et al., 2000). One participant (P#40) remarked on the possibility of sexuality-conscious ideologies causing unwanted attention, espousing that “making time and room to talk about such issues, in a way, may bring more unwanted attention that can make people of LGBTQ+ or straight/cis identities feel uncomfortable”.

Policy Implications

The present study contributes to broader discussions on marginalized groups’ perceptions of diversity philosophies that take an identity-conscious or difference-evading approach (e.g., Gündemir et al., 2019), particularly in the educational setting. Participants’ qualitative data suggest that generally sexuality blindfolding in college settings is perceived to perpetuate a lack of understanding of the experiences of SGM people, which increases the potential for acts of discrimination (even among those using sexuality blindfolding with good intentions). Educators and policymakers making decisions regarding curriculum need to strongly consider the positive effects of LGBTQ-inclusive policy and gender-sexuality alliances on SGM student belonging (Day et al., 2020), with a specific eye toward the varied ways in which censoring LGBTQ topics and identity discussions can reduce LGBTQ students’ feelings of inclusion and academic success.

Discussions regarding effective and ineffective diversity ideologies towards SGM should utilize the vast literature on racial color-evasion as a case study into the disparities that persist when minority experiences of discrimination are not addressed with explicit identity-conscious policy (e.g., persistent gaps in educational attainment that are lessened with identity-conscious recruitment policies; Baker, 2019). Highlighting the potential dangers of sexuality blindfolding may be a perplexing topic given common conceptions that sexuality can be a “private” (i.e., not discussed in public) topic. However, as denoted by Holmes IV (2020) SGM experiences that are often avoided are not specifically regarding whom they are attracted to, but rather their relationships and experiences of identity, which when minimized or avoided promote a feeling of exclusion with implications across varied life domains.

Conclusion

Sexuality blindfolding as a diversity ideology may have further undue effects on SGM students as without explicit discussion of SGM identities, the default falls to majority groups (e.g., heteronormative assumptions; Thorne et al., 2021), leaving SGM students, and SGM people more broadly, at a disadvantage in deciding if they should openly be themselves in contexts that do not endorse valuing their SGM identity. Together, the present inquiry suggests that the individual, interpersonal, and societal costs of utilizing sexuality blindfolding outweigh the potential intergroup benefits of “not seeing” and discussing SGM identities. Policymakers should consider the many adverse consequences of banning discussions of sexual and gender identity in educational settings and beyond.

Public Significance Statement:

The present research considers how recent state-level policy changes to reduce the discussion of sexual orientation and gender diversity in public education can harm sexual and gender minority (SGM) students’ inclusion and well-being. Coding of qualitative data from SGM college students suggests that difference-evading approaches towards sexual orientation (those that seek to avoid discussing and recognizing group identity) likely make SGM students feel deviant and unincluded, and are viewed as perpetuating bias against them, even if people using this approach mean well. Overall, this research suggests it is better to talk about and value SGM identities and that policies that seek to censor discussions of SGM-related topics may have adverse effects on SGM students and societal progress.