Rainbow Illinois:
A survey of non-metropolitan lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people

  Ramona Faith Oswald, Ph.D.
Eileen Gebbie, M.A.
Linda Sue Culton, M.S./M.S.W.

University of Illinois

ABSTRACT

This community report is based upon survey responses from 527 self-identified GLBT people residing in 38 different non-metropolitan Illinois counties. Respondents were located through GLBT organizations and social networks. Closed-ended survey questions asked about demographics, family relationships, religion, computer usage, residential community, GLBT community, and experiences with discrimination. Open ended questions asked respondents to identify the "best" and "worst" aspects of their lives, as well as to offer suggestions regarding what would improve their lives. Descriptive results are presented, and four action recommendations are made.

  Rainbow Illinois: A survey of non-metropolitan lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people

Rural culture has been traditionally organized by kinship systems that link blood lineage, legal marriage, and land ownership (Boswell, 1980). Cultural coherence is bolstered when there is consistency and fluidity between family, community, and religious systems (Salamon, 1992). People whose identities or behavior are perceived as undermining the culture, for example lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender (LGBT) people have been considered threatening to social order, and sanctions have been used to promote expulsion or conformity (Boswell, 1980). Traditional rural culture has been challenged by recent changes such as the increasing concentration of land ownership and farming into a vertical corporate structure (Albrecht, 1986); the expansion of suburban development (Salamon, in press); a trend of reverse migration from urban to rural (Johnson, 1993); and the growing use of Internet technology and daily travel to access resources not otherwise available (Haag & Chang, 1997). These changes have loosened the organization of non-metropolitan society. However, the scant literature suggests that heteronormative social pressures and sanctions remain salient for LGBT people who live in non-metropolitan areas (Bell & Valentine, 1995; Smith & Mancoske, 1997).

Rural LGBT people have been found to create private, even secretive, lives that emphasize relationships within closed support networks (Cody & Welch, 1997; D’Augelli, 1988; Kramer, 1995). Support networks may include biolegal and chosen kin, as well as friends and neighbors (Butler & Hope, 1999; Cody & Welch, 1997). Lesbians may especially define their network as “the lesbian feminist community” (Butler & Hope, 1999; D’Augelli, 1988; Krieger, 1983). The emphasis on privacy is both personal preference (Cody & Welch, 1997) and a strategy for surviving within a hostile climate (D’Augelli, 1988, Kramer, 1995). Those who are unable to create strong private supports may suffer from intense isolation and loneliness, and may use the Internet (Haag & Chang, 1997) or migrate to urban areas in search of resources and support (Kramer, 1995; D’Augelli & Hart, 1987). Returning to non-metropolitan communities and families after migration may be extremely stressful (Oswald, 2002).

The research findings that we have just summarized are based upon small-scale studies (N<25) that have largely emphasized the negative aspects of rural life for LGBT people. We conducted our survey to collect basic demographic and family data regarding both the positive and negative aspects of rural life from a larger sample covering a wider geographical region.

Our purpose was also to initiate a relationship between LGBT people in central and southern Illinois that is consistent with our University’s land grant mission to link conduct research with community relevance. This version of our report has been revised for an academic audience, though it remains a purely descriptive document. The original report is available by contacting the first author. After describing our methodology, we present descriptive results and implications for practice. We conclude with a statement about the importance of researching the lives of non-metropolitan LGBT people.

METHODS

We collected survey data from 527 self-identified LGBT people residing in 38 different central and southern Illinois counties. The participants in this survey are not representative of rural LGBT people. Participants were located through organizations and social networks, and thus this study is biased towards people who belong to LGBT organizations or have other LGBT people in their lives, and who are willing to fill out and return a survey.

Two thousand surveys were distributed through organization mailing lists and personal networks. Organizations and individuals agreed to distribute surveys on the condition that we, the researchers, not have access to actual names and addresses. Sixty-seven surveys were returned due to incorrect addresses, giving a return rate of 27% (527/1933). This rate is probably higher because there was likely some overlap between mailing lists (one respondent called to say that he had received three different packets), but we were unable to determine the exact rate of this overlap because surveys were distributed without our having personal access to the mailing lists. We consider our sample size to be highly successful given the private and decentralized quality of rural LGBT life.

As an incentive, respondents selected to which local LGBT organization they would like one dollar donated in appreciation for their participation. This money was distributed to organizations along with our original community report.

Survey questions emphasized family of origin relationships, but also inquired about numerous other domains. In addition to collecting family data, the goal was to establish base-line demographic information that could be used for both academic and applied pursuits. Questions were developed by the first author, and further modified in conjunction with a LGBT community focus group. The first and second questions asked respondents to briefly describe the best and worst aspects of their lives as LGBT people in central and southern Illinois. They then answered a series of questions about relationships with same-sex, opposite-sex, and trans partners. We then presented a chart with 13 different types of anti-LGBT acts (plus write-in space) and asked them to check if they had feared or actually experienced these acts. If they had experienced one or more acts, we asked them to name (by relationship, e.g. sister rather than Susan) who perpetrated the act, and how often. Respondents then rated on 5-point scales how visible they felt as a GLBT person, how lonely, and how connected they were to residential community, immediate family of origin, extended family of origin, other LGBT individuals, and the LGBT community. We asked respondents about their travel habits, Internet access, and parental status. Separate questions for immediate and extended family were asked, and included questions about amount of contact, degree out, climate, number of LGBT people in family, and rituals. We also asked about religion, residential community, employment, year of birth, race, ethnicity, physical sex, femininity, masculinity, sexual orientation, labeling, education, and income. The survey ended with an open-ended question about what would improve the respondents life as a LBGT person in central and southern Illinois, and space of further comments, and a place to indicate which LGBT organization should receive their dollar donation.

Measurement of specific items is described below when we present our descriptive results. Though the survey used counter-balanced items, all scales have been adjusted for analysis so that a higher score indicates a higher value on that item. Also, all values have been rounded up to whole numbers.

Oswald (in press-b) presents a grounded theory analysis of all open-ended data that is tailored for family practitioners in rural communities, and should be seen as complementary to this report. Quantitative data regarding rituals are presented in Oswald (2001; in press-b).

DEMOGRAPHICS

Sexual Orientation

Forty-six percent of respondents identified as gay, 37% lesbian, 10% bisexual, and 6% other (heterosexual, asexual, queer, or other).

Sex

Fifty-two percent of respondents were born biological females and 47% were born biological males. The remaining one percent (3 people) of participants were born trans- or inter-sexual. The term transsexual refers to people who were born one sex but have undergone chemical treatment, surgery or a combination of the two in order to transition from their birth sex to another (e.g. female-to-male and male-to-female). Inter-sex is the preferred term for people previously known as “hermaphrodites.” Inter-sex people have a combination of both male and female genetic and/or physical characteristics. Trans and inter-sex people reported being shunned or otherwise isolated from LGB people, who may share the general societal presumption that people are always either male or female (see “confront our differences” in the action recommendation section).

Age  

Participants ranged in age from 17 to 77 years. The average age was 41.

Though older people commented on ageism within the LGBT community, they also marveled at the increased acceptance and visibility of sexual minorities. Also, many participants expressed concerns about LGBT youths’ need for information and support.

“I wish the LGBT community (but especially the gay community) would shift its focus from youth and physical appearance to something more rounded…Looking at the media and the personals (Planet Out and Excite) I feel ancient at 37!”

“Growing up in a small town in the 30-40's was not oppressive-as long as you kept your nose clean. I marvel at the freedoms and gains made by our tribe in the past 60 years. The young ones should know of the advances we have made-thanks to each generation.”

“Resources down here for teenagers are really poor and they are at risk because of it.”

Race

Respondents were overwhelmingly white. Ninety-three percent reported their race as White, 2% Native American, 3% Hispanic-Latino/a, 2% African/African American, and 2% Asian/Pacific Islander (percentages do not add up to exactly 100% as some people reported more than one race). Assuming that LGBT people exist in every racial/ethnic group in similar numbers, future research should do a much better job at locating LGBT people of color, who may not join the organizations through which many respondents for this survey were located.

Many people of color made reference to racism in their open ended comments. The few white people who mentioned race did so with an awareness of white privilege.

"This ain’ t the place to be Black and gay! There’s a lack of racial diversity within and outside of the LGBT community.”  

"A lot of racial discrimination exists from white male gays.”  

“There are not many of my ethnicity who are LGBT or that support LGBT.”  

“As a LGBT person and a person of color, I feel there needs to be a greater, stronger bridge to link people of color together with queer people.”

"My class and skin privilege have made it easier than others might find it.”  

Efforts to confront racism and cultural differences among LGBT people could go a long way towards building a stronger community, and a stronger bridge linking LGBT concerns to other those of other groups that also experience prejudice and inequality.

Parental Status

One hundred seventeen respondents (22%) were parents to a total of 236 children. They parented one to five kids, with an average of two kids per parent. Thirty-one percent of female and 13% of male participants were parents (see below chart). Half of the children were female, half male.  

Seventy-eight percent of the children were biologically connected to their LGBT parent. The remaining 22% of children were connected to their LGBT parent through adoption, foster, step-parenting, co-parenting, or other arrangement. Sixty percent of the parents were in at least weekly contact with their children. The age of children ranged from 1 to 50 years, with a mean 20 years, and a mode of 30.

Comments about being parents were varied, with mothers and fathers expressing both the joys of having children and the struggles for support and acceptance that they faced. Several mentioned battling for custody of their children.

“(We need more) support for LGBT folks with children…and awareness in the community, etc. There are plenty of us and it’s very difficult to become visible because of potential threats to children/custody…”

“We are a gay couple ... since we have children we have had the BEST of both worlds.”

“…We need a school district that is more concerned about making schools safe for all children including its LGBT students and students of LGBT parents.”

“I am afraid that my relationship with my son and grandchild would be destroyed if they knew I’m a lesbian.”

Income

We asked respondents how much money they made last year. Income ranged from below $10,000 to more than $100,000. The mean and mode both fell within the $31,000 to $40,000 category.

Education

More than one-third of respondents had an advanced degree (34%). This finding was not surprising given that the survey was associated with a University, and many LGBT organizations through which respondents were located had a school connection.

Employment

Seventy-two percent of respondents were employed full-time and 11% part-time. Fifteen percent were students, 4% retired, 3% unemployed, and 2% involved in seasonal work. Eight percent performed some other kind of labor. The percents do not add up to exactly 100 because people could have more than one kind of employment.

Fifty percent of the respondents traveled three miles or less to work. The other half traveled from 4 to 200 miles.

Respondents were concentrated in education and the “helping professions.” As you can see in the following table, 24% worked in education, 16% in social or religious services, 10% law/advocacy, and 10% health care.  

Forty eight percent of respondents felt tolerated as a LGBT person in their primary place of employment, 40% felt supported, and 12% felt hostility. It is important to question what “tolerated” means given the level of coworker perpetration of anti-LGBT acts that will be reviewed in the discrimination section of this paper.

Computer Access

Four hundred and forty-one (84%) of respondents had Internet access. More than half of those with access went online at least once per week (66%). The Internet was used it to keep in touch with friends, to access LGBT resources or support, and to meet other LGBT people. The electronic community allows access to information and support that might not otherwise be available outside of major metropolitan areas. This resource allows LGBT people anonymity when needed and addresses problems of physical distance faced by people in rural areas (25% of respondents travel an average of 64 miles per week just to be around other LGBT people or access LGBT resources).

Place of Residence

Survey data documented that LGBT people resided in almost every county in central Illinois (shaded area on map). However, there is no reason to believe that LGBT people don't live in every county. The 72 respondents who declined to give their zip code may fear being identified.

Seventy-five percent of respondents lived in large towns/cities, 15% small towns, 8% rural or country areas, and 2% in a suburban area.   

“After 20 years living in Chicago & Houston, I needed less stress of a city like Champaign.”

          “The best thing about living here is the wide open farmland. I own a farm and love the country. I would hate to be in a more populated area. I have many gay friends here whose company I truly enjoy.”

Only 11% of respondents said that they felt supported as a LGBT person in their residential community. Seventy-two percent felt tolerated as a LGBT person in their community of residence, and 17% hostility.

Feeling supported appeared to be the result of a person creating their own network of friends and family. When asked, “What is the best thing about your life as a LGBT person in central Illinois?" the most common response was "having a terrific partner and/or wonderful friends."

“I have a very supportive community, both straight and gay, at the U of I and at my church.”

The most common response to the question “What is the worst thing about your life as a LGBT person Central Illinois?” was “the conservative public/religious right.”  

“We’re so vulnerable when we’re alone. The cops here won’t even file reports of the problems I’ve had with the neighbors. It’s my love of the land, the “family pride” in the farm, the family – my parents and my duty to teach them – that keeps me here in the middle of nowhere.”  

“Attitudes toward LGBT people are not as progressive here as in larger cities.”

What these best things/ worst things questions suggest is that central and southern Illinois is not a particularly friendly environment in which to live unless you have the personal/private resources with which to carve out a good life. Thus, social support for LGBT people come from their own tenacity and innovation rather than any effort by the community at large. Given that LGBT people are just as much stakeholders in their communities as any other people, we should strategize ways to increase support for LGBT citizens in their residential communities.

ANTI-LGBT PREJUDICE AND DISCRIMINATION

In an effort to understand the full experience of LGBT people in central and southern Illinois, respondents were asked if they had experienced mistreatment because they were LGBT. In addition to reporting their experiences, participants told us how often each type of mistreatment had occurred and who had perpetrated it.

In the following table, types of mistreatment are listed in rank order (most commonly reported to least commonly reported).

"As someone over 55, professional, and out in all aspects of my life, I do not generally experience bigotry because of the social circle and business circle in which I participate. However, in spite of my accomplishments and roles in society, I have been, and still fear being, attacked, abused and insulted, simply and exclusively on the basis of my sexual orientation.”  

"There is no support when problems and threats come.”  

“It’s tiring to hide myself when meeting new people, interacting with business people, some professors, interviewing for jobs. My boyfriend and I can only be open with each other at home, not out in public.”  

We also asked who perpetrated the acts that respondents had experienced. Strangers were the most common perpetrators (see column totals at the bottom), and they were more responsible for the more serious acts. It is not a surprise that many respondents felt merely tolerated in their residential communities; the results lend further credence to their perception of non-support.  

“Those who know me and my parents are tolerant or supportive, but bigoted strangers still threaten, insult, or even assault.”