LGBTQ Centers in US Experience Increased Harassment, Threats, and Violence

An alarming 73% of LGBTQ centers around the United States experienced harassment and threats of violence during the past two years. A majority of those incidents were a direct result of anti-LGBTQ politics and rhetoric, according to new research from Movement Advancement Project and CenterLink, which supports and connects LGBTQ community centers around the country. According to their 2024 LGBTQ Community Center Survey Report, published last month, nearly a quarter of the centers that experienced harassment and violence said they were linked to specific legislation in their state.

Advocates point to the more than 530 pieces of anti-LGBTQ legislation introduced in state legislatures this year around the country and the politicians and network of anti-LGTBQ organizations behind them as a major component to these threats. These bills send a “divisive” message, “and ultimately a potential promise of regression of LGBTQ acceptance and rights,” said Emerson Hodges, research analyst with the Intelligence Project at the Southern Poverty Law Center. “You can’t label the cause directly, but you definitely can look at the symptoms and see that there is a real impact of this legislation. The kind of rhetoric that these politicians are using, characterizing LGB people as groomers and gender-affirming care providers [as performing] mutilation, this type of rhetoric is designed to whip up fear and disgust towards trans and nonbinary people. Not only are these politicians punching down, but they are sending a message that being trans or nonbinary is unacceptable, unnatural, and invalid. And I don’t think it’s misinformation. It’s more intentional than that; It’s disinformation.”

The LGBTQ centers reporting harassment and threats connected to anti-LGBTQ legislation cited “the temperature of what’s going on around them legislatively, whether that’s a matter of the timing of when the experience occurred or a statement that was made,” said Tessa Juste, LGBTQ movement building and policy researcher at Movement Advancement Project and lead researcher on the report. The ramifications of these incidents include not only physical and emotional damage but also logistical and financial costs associated with trouble-shooting to avoid further incidents. This can include adopting various kinds of pre-planning ahead of events and adding in extra security, explained Juste.

Despite these widespread attacks and threats, the centers continue to be “vital anchors for local communities, providing both LGBTQ and non-LGBTQ people with critical resources,” according to the report, and they collectively serve about 3 million people a year. The harassment and violence at LGBTQ centers come at a time of both increased need for the services they provide as well as dwindling resources. “Many LGBTQ centers, like many front-line nonprofit organizations, are facing challenges in maintaining adequate staffing levels,” said Denise Spivak, CEO of CenterLink. However, “our communities and our centers are not unused to challenges. Most LGBTQ community members have experienced discrimination and harassment at some point in their lives, often compounded by the challenges associated with intersecting marginalized identities.”

The number of anti-LGBTQ bills has been steadily increasing since 2015, when there were 100, which was a record at the time. Every single year since then has set a record, said Imani Rupert-Gordon, president of the National Center for Lesbian Rights. “People echo the words of leaders. And we’ve seen an increase of anti-LGBTQ rhetoric. We see musicians and celebrities and people running for office using dangerous, anti-LGBTQ rhetoric. It contributes to an environment where people think it’s OK to hold these views and then act them out in incredibly violent ways.”

The most harmful effects from anti-LGBTQ legislation are the legal restrictions they impose, “but even the introduction of these bills has significant negative impacts” on LGBTQ people’s mental health, especially on young people, said Rupert-Gordon. Part of the strategy of anti-LGBTQ organizations and politicians is to put more bills out there than LGBTQ advocacy organizations can successfully challenge. On top of that, there has been an increase in anti-LGBTQ judges. “We’re watching equality slip through our fingers,” she explained.

Advocates cite the anti-abortion movement as inspiration for the plethora of anti-LGBTQ legislation and discourse. “A large part of the anti-LGBT movement is also anti-abortion, and we’re seeing a transfer of the playbook and tactics that were used by anti-abortion groups being used in a new way,” said Hodges. “It’s the same principles of harassment and targeting, but now they also have online capabilities” to facilitate their ability to spread their hateful messaging.

Although the survey results weren’t surprising, “given the climate around LGBTQIA issues,” said Juste, she also pointed to the “massive proportion of centers that are engaged in some form of advocacy.” Over 90% of all centers that were part of the survey engage in advocacy, public policy, or civic engagement activities. Almost every center was involved with advocacy efforts at the local level, 40% were engaged at the federal level, and a vast majority were involved with efforts to educate the public about LGBTQ people. This “speaks to centers, whether they’re staffed, [all] volunteer, or a mix, being very responsive to this moment,” said Juste.