Are urban spaces queer-friendly places? How geographic context shapes support for LGBT rights

Abstract

The US is geographically divided on LGBT rights. Urban contexts represent environments where individuals are generally more supportive of LGBT rights, while support is lower in nonurban contexts. Despite these differences, there is a paucity of research on why individuals in urban contexts are more supportive of LGBT rights. Using data from the General Social Survey (GSS), the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI), and the Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES), this paper explores the relationship between urbanicity and support for LGBT rights. Results demonstrate than urban residents exhibit higher levels of support for LGBT rights than nonurban residents. In testing potential mechanisms that explain support for LGBT rights in urban contexts, multilevel analyses indicate that the metro-level population density of LGBT individuals conditions the relationship between urban residence and support for LGBT rights. I also find mixed evidence for the effects of geographic sorting on support for LGBT rights, thus eliminating the possibility that individuals with homopositive select into large cities. The paper highlights the important role that urban environments play in shaping public support for LGBT rights.

“Protect the women!” Trans‐exclusionary feminist issue framing and support for transgender rights

“…To assess the potential distinction between rural and urban preferences we include a categorical measure indicating those who live in large urban cities (reference category) from those who live in small towns or more rural areas. Urban areas, as cosmopolitan hubs, tend to be more socially liberal and are empirically found to be more tolerant of LGBT+ populations (Ayoub & Kollman, 2021; Thompson, 2022). We anticipate urban respondents will be more supportive of the GRA reform.…”

Are Openly LGBTQ2+ the New Sacrificial Lambs? Campaign Contexts and the Gendered Implications for LGBTQ2+ Candidates

“…Haider-Markel (2010: 80; see also Haider-Markel et al, 2020) argues that in the United States in the early 2000s, LGBT “candidates strategically select where and when to run and thereby reduce, and perhaps negate, the role of sexual orientation in elections.” These locations tended to be larger urban centres with higher levels of social diversity and more liberal attitudes, as opposed to smaller or more rural communities, which are more likely to hold more conservative views about homosexuality (see also Wilson, 1995). Button et al (1999: 204) observed that the chances for success of lesbian and gay candidates “are greatest in large, diverse communities with sizable gay populations and electoral structures that are hospitable to minority candidates.” Similarly, Thompson (2022) demonstrates that living in a metropolitan area is conducive to greater support for LGBT rights, not least because this environment provides queer social infrastructure and more opportunities for intergroup contacts, thus fuelling the notion of metronormativity (Halberstam, 2005: 36).…”

“…Button et al (1999: 204) observed that the chances for success of lesbian and gay candidates "are greatest in large, diverse communities with sizable gay populations and electoral structures that are hospitable to minority candidates." Similarly, Thompson (2022) demonstrates that living in a metropolitan area is conducive to greater support for LGBT rights, not least because this environment provides queer social infrastructure and more opportunities for intergroup contacts, thus fuelling the notion of metronormativity (Halberstam, 2005: 36).…”