Por La Vía de La Exclusión: Homofobia y Ciudadania en Puerto Rico Versión Ingles PDF

WAY OFBY
EXCLUSION
J O S É T O R O - A L F O N S O
WAY OF BY
EXCLUSION
Homophobia and Citizenship in Puerto Rico
J O S É T O R O - A L F O N S O
2
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
0
Civil Rights Commission
0
7
COMMISSIONERS EMPLOYEES
Dr. Palmira N. Ríos González Luz Mairym López Rodríguez

Chairperson Administrative Official / Special Assistant
Mr. Héctor Pérez Rivera, Esq. Ms. Liza Y. Morales Jusino, Esq.
Vice Chairperson Legal Advisor
Mr. José I. Irizarry Yordán, Esq. Mr. Joel Ayala Martínez, Esq.
Secretary Legal Advisor
Mr. René Pinto Lugo, Esq. Julio Rafael Alejandro Andino

Commissioner Accountant
Dr. Nelson I. Colón Tarrats Marve Liz Osorio Figueroa

Commissioner Purchasing Official
Lorenzo Villalba Rolón Angélica Canini Torres

Executive Director Office Systems Management Assistant,
Administration Area
Noelani Avilés Deliz

Administrative Office Systems
Management Assistant, Office of the Director
María Quiñónez Rivera

Office Systems Management Assistant, Legal Area
Elizabeth Méndez Mantilla

Office Systems Management Assistant,
Education Area
Koren Ramos Son

Office Systems Management Assistant,
Administrative and Human Resources Area
William Morales Rosa

Messenger - Driver
Rosalynn Gutiérrez Rosario

Receptionist
2 • Civil Rights Commission

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface ............................................................................................................................5
Acknowledgments .........................................................................................................7
Dedication......................................................................................................................9
REPORT
I. Introduction and Review of Literature ...................................................................11
a. The Desire that Dares Not Speak its Name..................................................................12
b. Research on Homosexualities in Puerto Rico ................................................................13
c. Homophobia: The Way of Exclusion .............................................................................15
d. The Institutionalization of Social Difference and Exclusion....................................15
e.From Exclusion to Full Citizenship ................................................................................17
II. Method ...............................................................................................................................19
a. Ethical Issues in the Protection of the Participants and Legal Issues of the Study......21
b. Participants ....................................................................................................................22
• Participants in the Survey for the Gay, Bisexual, Lesbian and
Transgender Community.......................................................................................22
•Participants in the Focused Interviews: Employees of the Participating Agencies ....25
c. Instruments ............................................................................................................27
• Informed Consent Form .......................................................................................27
• Quantitative Questionnaire .................................................................................27
• Qualitative Interviews ........................................................................................28
• Guide for the Interview with the Employees of the Participating ..........................28
• Guide for the Focus Group ...................................................................................29
d. Procedure..............................................................................................................29
• Preparation of Databases .....................................................................................30
III. Analysis ...................................................................................................................31
a. Quantitative Analysis ............................................................................................31
b. Qualitative Analysis...............................................................................................31
IV. Results .....................................................................................................................32
a. Quantitative Phase: GLBT Community ............................................................32
• Victimization Experiences .................................................................................32
• Experiences in Government Agencies in Puerto Rico ...........................................33
By Way of Exclusion • 3
• Perception of Social Exclusion in Puerto Rico .....................................................36
• Perception of Stigma toward Homosexuality, Lesbianism, Bisexuality ................38
b. Quantitative Phase: Employees of Government Agencies ....................................39
• Prejudice and Social Distance............................................................................39
c. Qualitative Phase: Employees of Government Agencies.......................................43
• Discriminatory Experiences at the Agencies Where They Work...........................43
• Knowledge about and Attitudes toward the GLBT Community .........................49
• Public Policies at the Agencies ............................................................................76
V. Discussion and Recommendations .................................................................80
a. The Conditional Right........................................................................................81
b. Social Policies .....................................................................................................82
c. Gender Reversal as a Basis for Exclusion .............................................................82
d. Strategic Recommendations.................................................................................82
References ......................................................................................................................88

PREFACE
When the Puerto Rico para Tod@s organization asked the

Puerto Rico Civil Rights Commission to conduct research to study
the incidence of homophobic manifestations in our society, we believed
that we were facing a new challenge in the defense of human rights
in the 21st century. Homophobia is deeply rooted in our country and
it constitutes a formidable factor of discrimination, marginalization
and exclusion. In fact, it seems that homophobia still exists as a
socially accepted prejudice. The frequency of jokes, epithets and
murals with hate messages evidence how much we tolerate it and, at
times, encourage it. The study and documentation of discriminatory
practices on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity from
private and government entities and the intersections between these
and the exercise of fundamental rights is crucial for the analysis of
the full validity of human rights in Puerto Rico. Respecting, protecting
and ennobling our rights are impossible in a context of discrimination
and exclusion of people on the basis of their orientation or gender
identity.
The Bill of Rights of our Constitution declared that the dignity
of human beings is inviolable, recognizing that fundamental rights
are for everybody, without reservations. We believe that rights are
universal, interdependent, indivisible and interrelated. Sexual
orientation and gender identity are integral aspects of the dignity of
human beings. Therefore, any form of discrimination, damage or
violation on the basis of orientation and gender identity is inconsistent
with the protection of the rights of all human beings. Violence,
stigmatization and exclusion diminish the exercise of the citizen rights
of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transsexual and transgender people because
they do have fundamental citizen rights and it is our duty to claim
their full execution and justiciability. No human being should be
submitted to living in marginalization and exclusion, to being the
object of abuses that wound their dignity and deny their humanity.
The Government of Puerto Rico, like all the governments in the
world, must guarantee life, the access to public services and the enjoyment
of the human rights of people regardless of their sexual orientation and
gender identity. All public agencies have the duty to provide services
and protections in equal conditions. They also have the special duty
to protect this community from the violence of which it is a victim.
By Way of Exclusion: Homophobia and Citizenship in Puerto Rico is an
important contribution to human rights literature. This research
provides conclusive evidence of the fact that homophobic values and
behaviors exist, that these prejudices create discriminatory environments,
that the public entities responsible for protecting the rights of the
people make their services conditional and sometimes deny them to
people on the basis of their sexual orientation and gender identity, and
that many people from the GLBT community live in conditions of
violence that threaten their dignity and even their lives. By Way of
Exclusion also provides us with a roadmap to combat the cancer of
homophobia. The Civil Rights Commission wishes to express its
deepest appreciation to Dr. José Toro Alfonso and his team of
researchers, as well as to all of the people who participated in the
interviews of the project for offering us such a valuable instrument in
the fight against homophobia. The GLBT community and the people
of Puerto Rico can rest assured that this Commission will work diligently
to implement the recommendations of this research and take all of the
necessary actions to eradicate all ways of exclusion on the basis of sexual
orientation and gender identity.
Palmira N. Ríos-González, PhD

Chairperson
2007

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS TC "ACKNOWLEDGMENTS"
The principal researcher and his research team wish to thank the
former executive director of the PUERTO RICO CIVIL RIGHTS
COMMISSION, Mr. Osvaldo Burgos, Esq., for all his support. His
enthusiasm and passion for the defense of human rights are truly
infectious.
We wish to acknowledge the support we received from the
COMMISSION FOR THE PREVENTION OF VIOLENCE
(COPREVI, Spanish acronym), which was an important part of this
work. COPREVI partially sponsored this research with its financial
contribution.
We wish to thank the heads of the participating agencies for their
immediate willingness to support the study and for issuing the necessary
instructions to efficiently conduct our research work.
We wish to thank each and every contact person at each of the
agencies. Without their diligent collaboration in the identification
of the sample and in expediting the meetings with the participants,
our task would have been much more difficult.
We would also like to thank the university authorities for all their
collaboration and support through the Intramural Practice Office and
its support personnel. We wish to thank the Assistant Dean for the
Procurement of External Funds of the Office of the Dean for Graduate
and Research Studies, Dr. Blanca Ortiz, for her orientation and
constant support.
We wish to express our appreciation to the Director of the
Psychology Department, Dr. Dolores Miranda, who very willingly
welcomed the development of the study by providing institutional
support, space and acknowledgment to the principal researcher.
We also wish to show our appreciation for the availability of the
people from the GLBT community who were so willing and interested
in collaborating in the study in multiple capacities: as participants in
the surveys, as recruiters, as part of the Advisory Committee and as
contact facilitators, and for wishing us success in this work.
PorBy Way of Exclusion • 7

We would like to thank Mr. Lorenzo Villalba Rolón, Acting
Executive Director of the Puerto Rico Civil Rights Commission, who
was instrumental in completing this work. We wish to thank Mairym
López and the rest of the work team of the Commission for all their
collaboration.
Finally, we would like to thank the students of the Psychology
4115 course on the social construction of homosexuality and lesbianism
of the first semester of the 2005-2006 school year, who adopted this
research to develop their research and analytical skills. Their work
in the digitalization of the audio-recorded interviews was a monumental
task which they carried out with great enthusiasm. We hope that
their participation in this research process contributed to their
personal and academic development.
Our greatest acknowledgment is for Dr. Yarimar Rodríguez-Rosa
for her work editing this report. Her meticulousness can be seen
throughout the document.
The principal researcher wishes to recognize the contributions
of Dr. Luis Nieves-Rosa for his initial coordination of the logistics
of the study and the interviews.
Likewise, we would like to thank the graduate assistant of the
Clinical Psychology Program of the Department of Psychology of the
University of Puerto Rico, María Gema Zuluaga, for her incalculable
collaboration in the achievement of the final objectives of this study.
RESEARCH TEAM
José Toro-Alfonso, PhD

Principal Researcher
Luis Nieves-Rosa, PhD

Coordinator and interviewer
María Gema Zuluaga, BA

Research Assistant, interviewer

DEDICATION
To every person who has died in the last twenty-five years

stigmatized and excluded by a ruthless epidemic of ignorance
and marginalization: the HIV epidemic.
To every teenager, male and female,

who has ever felt different
and to whom that difference caused despair…
with the hope for a world that will include
all of us…
precisely because of our differences.
“We have a big homosexual population which is being neglected in certain areas,
which is desperately screaming out that they want to be accepted,
and not be humiliated, stereotyped or kicked out,
but to be accepted just as they are, the way they are,
so that they will show what they are as human beings.”
(Interview at the Department of Justice)

I
INTRODUCTION AND REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The Civil Rights Commission was created by virtue of Public Law No. 102 of June
28, 1965, as amended. Afterwards, this Organic Act was amended by Public Law No.
186 of September 3, 1996, which attached the Commission to the Legislative Assembly.
The Commission has the mission to protect and ennoble civil rights in Puerto Rico
by educating the people and government officials, conducting research and providing
orientation about these fundamental rights.
The main duties of the Commission are educating the people about the meaning
of the fundamental rights that protect the members of a democratic society such as
ours and recommending legal and administrative reforms designed to protect, ennoble
and improve those rights. These duties are carried out through various programs aimed
at education, research and recommendation of public policies that will strengthen and
protect the rights of the citizens.
The history of the commitment and of the arduous labor of the Commission is
very well-known in Puerto Rico and respected in both civil society and in government
and judicial spheres. Throughout its forty-year history, the Commission has been
widely represented in all the debates of the Puerto Rican civil society. Part of this
work can be seen in Volumes 1 and 2 of the reports of the Commission published in
1973, which cover the work of the Commission between 1959 and 1972 (Comisión de
Derechos Civiles, 1973a; 1973b).
Recently, the Commission has explored the subjects of sexism, racism and the right
to life, thus becoming an integral part of the voices against establishing the death
penalty in the country. The spirit of the Commission has been the voice of alert in the
defense of the supreme rights of each citizen as established in the Constitution of
Puerto Rico.
The Commission devises its strategies at the request of citizens who ask for its
intervention through formal complaints or private communications. Likewise, the
Commission identifies critical areas in which it believes that rights are being violated
and that developing appropriate interventions is necessary.
It is within this context that the Commission raised the question of the situation
of the fundamental rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people in Puerto
Rico. The few complaints that have been formally filed with the Commission seem
to present a vulnerable area for a sector of society that seems to be marginalized and
excluded due simply to their sexual orientation (complaints of 04/15/04, 11/29/04,
01/27/05 and 02/09/05). This situation is manifested in the social differentiation of
gays and lesbians to the extent of completely excluding them from society.
a. The Desire that Dares Not Speak its Name
Much has been said about homosexuality as an innate characteristic, alleging that
sexual orientation is not biologically determined but rather built through personal and
social history (Mucciaroni & Killian, 2004). Although this idea may seem attractive,
it has generated a series of debates regarding the origin of homosexuality. Likewise,
simplistic explanations about homosexuality have proliferated. The efforts to find
hormonal or genetic characteristics of this sexual orientation have multiplied. Some
researchers have proven that if a man is gay and has an identical twin, this twin also
tends to be homosexual. In fact, Ardila (1998) points out that “Fifteen years ago we
emphasized learning factors, whereas at the end of the century we are emphasizing
genetic and hormonal factors” (pg. 78).
The truth is that hormonal and even brain differences are not universal. When
researchers state that there are differences in the size of certain brain structures in
homosexual males and indicate that their size is similar to those in women, we will
never know whether that responds to the essence of those brain structures or to the
social construct of heterosexual masculinity (Hammer & Caplan, 1994).
Sexual orientation has been one of the most studied phenomena in the last decade,
and possibly the least understood by our society. The history of humanity is plagued
by cases of incomprehension, rejection, violence and marginalization toward this
population. From the most ancient interpretations of the events of Sodom and
Gomorrah, the Inquisition of the Roman Catholic Church, the burning of witches, the
psychoanalysis couch and the electroconvulsive and aversion therapies to the modern
sodomy codes, society, in one way or another, has kept its fear and rejection toward
differences in sexual orientation intact (Herek, 2000).
Studies on sexuality have made much progress since the studies by Kinsey, Pomeron
and Martin in 1948 and 1953. Almost 50 years have passed from the time when sexuality
was exclusively examined within the field of biology, with the important research of
Master and Johnson (1966; 1970) in the United States and Hirschfeld in Germany (1935),
to the most recent studies regarding the social organization of sexuality by Laumann,
Gagnon, Michael and Michaels (1994).

Sexuality and its meanings have been explored in various manners, among them,
in popular magazines and other printed media and in centers of higher education.
Under the guideline of mainly essentialist paradigms, many researchers have tried to
discover the complexity of human sexual behavior using heterosexuality as a frame of
reference (Parker & Gagnon, 1995).
The thesis of the biological and essentialist origin of homosexuality has always
been related to the discourse of minorities. And, within that discourse, we expect the
fragile acceptance and social recognition for which the homophile movements have
fought since the beginning of the last century. The argument here is that gays should
be accepted, not because they are free to choose their sexual identity, but because they
have no choice other than being gay.
b. Research on Homosexualities in Puerto Rico1
As of 1980, we can find research in Puerto Rico related to the subject of

homosexuality and lesbianism, which have been studied consistently until this day,
mainly through research for theses and dissertations in the universities of the country.
Unfortunately, most of these research projects, although they are relevant and represent
an excellent contribution to the subject, have never been published. Much of the
research work conducted in Puerto Rico is mainly related to the subject of the HIV
epidemic, including the impact and modes of prevention for various populations and
for the male homosexual population.
The subject of homosexualities has also been taken up numerous times in Puerto
Rican literature. Through poetry, fiction and erotic short stories, many Puerto Rican
authors have contributed to the series of stories and manifestations of homosexual
desire, from the risqué manifestations of Ramos Otero (1992) to lesser known but
equally enlightening stories about the reality of the sexual desire and conduct between
people of the same sex. One example is the work of Carlos Varo (1987) in his novel
about a transgender man who becomes the founder of a convent. Favoring the mysticism,
the confusion and the reversal of gender, Varo (1987) presents a side of homosexualities
that could represent the manifestations of the Puerto Rican homoerotic desire.
1
For more information about research on homosexuality in Puerto Rico, see Toro-Alfonso, J. (2006). El estudio de las
homosexualidades: Revisión, retos éticos y metodológicos [Study of Homosexualities: Review, Ethical and Methodological
Challenges]. Revista de Ciencias Sociales, 14, 78-97.
Ángel Lozada (1996), on the other hand, reveals his culinary taste and his irony in
the novel La Patografía in which the most succulent dish is cooked with a mixture of
religious references and references to intergenerational suffering that could very well
constitute the same stereotype about homosexual desire known by our literature.
Other more influential authors of the queer theory present, with elaborate language
and postmodern discourse, the complexity of the homoerotic desire (Ríos Ávila, 2002).
Likewise, Mayra Santos-Febres (2000) presented the complexity of gender and
homosexualities in an extraordinary manner when she narrated Selena’s adventures in
search of her identity in her manifestation of femininity.
Recently, we have seen academic research related to the subject of gender
transgression (Rodríguez-Madera & Toro-Alfonso, 2002) with the description of risk
behaviors for HIV infection and the situations of vulnerability of a sample of transgender
people in Puerto Rico. Furthermore, Toro-Alfonso and Rodríguez Madera (2004)
published a paper about domestic violence in same-sex couples in which they examined
the prevalence of emotional, physical and sexual aggression in male homosexual couples
in Puerto Rico. Another paper described the process of constructing homosexuality
in populations of young adolescents (Mercado, 2000) comparing it to the development
of the heterosexual sexuality of a parallel group of young people. Ramírez, García Toro
and Solano-Castillo (2004) presented the stories of a group of men in their description
of the acknowledgment and subsequent acceptance of their homosexual desire, which
was defined as the process of coming out of the closet in a sample of Puerto Rican
men.
The variety of topics and the versatility of the work show the growing interest in
the subject matter of sexualities and their particular manifestations in our society.
Although less, research on lesbianism has also been developed in dissertations and
thesis in various university faculties. The work has included different theoretical
approaches with a variety of methods, ranging from quantitative methods to case studies
and life stories. This should not be surprising if we take into account the fact that
there are currently formal courses on homosexuality and lesbianism in several programs
of the University of Puerto Rico, such as psychology, social work and interdisciplinary
studies.
2
“Queer,” defined as “strange,” “different” or “peculiar,” represents a more in-depth analysis than that offered by the categories
of “homosexual” or “heterosexual.” The queer discourse tries to demonstrate that desire, identities and practices do not
always fit neatly. It describes identities and practices that transcend the inherent instability in the supposed reciprocity
between anatomical sex, gender and sexual desire.

c. Homophobia: The Way of Exclusion
Some authors have defined homophobia as an irrational negative attitude toward

homosexuals that may be manifested as harassment, verbal abuse, violent attacks and
even homicide (Friedman & Downey, 1994). Other people define it as a dislike of gays
and lesbians that includes the condemnation, disdain, fear and proscription of homosexual
conduct (Castañeda, 2000; Fone, 2003; Pharr, 1997). The term was originally coined
by George Weinberg (1972) to describe the fear and rejection of the proximity to
everything representing homosexuality.
The truth is that homophobia is manifested as an affective response and negative
attitudes based on myths and stereotypes about the relationships between people of
the same sex (Snively, Kreurger, Stretch, Watt, & Chadha, 2004). Homophobia, like
racism and misogyny, represents major obstacles to the full enjoyment of the human
rights that should be guaranteed to all citizens. In fact, some researchers on the subject
have expressed that in western society, where racism and anti-Semitism are condemned
and where misogyny has lost legitimacy, homophobia perhaps remains as the last socially
accepted prejudice (Fone, 2003). This coincides with the study on political intolerance
in Puerto Rico in which participants indicated that the group that was most rejected
and which they least desired as neighbors was homosexuals, as compared to ex-convicts,
foreigners, communists and other social groups (Benítez, 1995).
d. The Institutionalization of Social Difference and Exclusion
Social institutions in Puerto Rico show a tremendous resistance to social changes

and to the acceptance of the diversity and complexity of human relations. Oftentimes,
they adhere to particular standards as a survival mechanism in a globalized society
(International Lesbian and Gay Association, 2001; Stychin, 2004).
The discrimination experienced by gay, lesbian and transgender people in US
society has been vastly documented (Greif & McClellan, 2003). In Puerto Rico, the
press has disclosed countless cases in which people from the homosexual community
have been allegedly discriminated against or excluded merely due to their sexual
orientation.
Public security forces have been the target of accusations regarding their manifest
homophobic positions in the attitudes of their personnel as well as in their police
interventions (Hunter, 2004; Myers, Forest & Millar, 2004; Kornblit, Pecheny &
Vujosevich, 1998). The accusations range from selective arrests, bogus cases and
mistreatment of citizens to omissions in cases in which the law has not been applied
consistently. Also included here is the lack of action in domestic violence cases in
which the complainant says that he or she is gay or lesbian (Irizarry, 2003; Jablow,
2000).
On the other hand, events such as the arrests of men in the bathrooms of a shopping
center in San Juan (Covas, 2005; Sosa, 2005) highlight a certain selectivity in police
interventions taking into consideration the limited resources and the great variety of
criminal events that occur daily. Furthermore, the morbid fascination of the news
media publicly judging and denouncing these arrests possibly adds a cruel and unusual
punishment on a particular sector of society just for unleashing its desire in prohibited
places (Montero, 2005; Soto, 2005).
Our judicial system does not do much to stop the unrestrained homophobia in
society. In a review of all the decisions of the Puerto Rico Supreme Court related to
cases in some way involving sexual orientation, Burgos (2005) concludes that “homophobic
and discriminatory elements permeate each and every decision that we have examined,
with the exception of one from 1953” (pg. 2). Similar reviews in the United States show
the same results (Ronner, 2005).
It is important to point out that, in most of the cases filed with the Supreme Court,
there have been extraordinary dissenting opinions in which one sector of the Court
shows a deep understanding of the phenomenon and the reality of homosexual people
in general and of those involved in the particular case (Burgos, 2005). This note presages
optimism in our highest judicial forum despite its onerous history.
In the area of the executive branch in Puerto Rico, it is important to mention the
agencies in charge of the protection and strengthening of families and their
manifestations—either express or implied—of homophobia. A service agency is as
efficient and committed as the personnel that constitute it. Oftentimes, the personnel
of the Puerto Rico Department of the Family have the responsibility of issuing a series
of recommendations that may many times be the result of stereotypes and prejudices
based on homophobia. The recommendations for custody in homoparental families,
adoptions and foster homes will depend on the willingness of the personnel and the
institutional support to grant similar rights under the same circumstances to gays and
lesbians as those granted to heterosexuals (King, 2001). Some studies have identified
high levels of homophobia in social workers and the personnel of family agencies in
Puerto Rico (Aponte, 2004). Several studies in the United States corroborate the levels
of heterosexism and prejudice against the homosexual population in both schools and
institutions that protect families (Krieglstein, 2003).

e. From Exclusion to Full Citizenship
It is impossible to guarantee the civil rights of a social sector within the context
of exclusion and the violation of human rights. Evidently, within this framework, sexual
rights are human rights. Marginalization, poverty, lack of access to health and protection
services and the lack of recognition of the variety of identities (situations that at times
even lead to murder) are violations of the rights to full citizenship of gay, lesbian,
bisexual and transgender people (Díaz, Ayala, Bein, Henne & Marín, 2001). Violations
of full citizenship seem to be constant and generalized in our country and the crude
reality is that these situations do not stir the rest of the community much.
In many cases, emigration represents a way out, not only from the deep circumstances
of poverty, but also to search for an illusion in a social space of a supposed greater
tolerance and permissiveness (Carballo-Diéguez, 1998). Certainly, “the quasi-criminal
and marginalized image of men who have sex with men must be reverted by the dignity of people
whom society recognizes as valid in their professional, work and creative fields” (Ugarte, 1999,
pg. 90).
All human beings have the right to a full life, and the diversity of sexual orientations
and identities should not be an obstacle for happiness. Establishing limits to police
interventions and to the permissive, tolerant attitude that allows majorities to assault
and marginalize gays and lesbians cannot be postponed. The government and its
institutions do not serve the community by failing to recognize their responsibility.
It is important to recognize that gays and lesbians face social, cultural and sometimes
legal and financial discrimination due to their sexual behavior with disastrous effects
on their mental health and the free enjoyment of life (Carleton, 1999; Mays & Cochran,
2001).
Developing and strengthening public policies that will protect the rights of this
sector of the community imply allowing the access of vulnerable populations to honorable
labor scenarios, to preventive health services and to the free expression of their sexuality.
It is imperative for the government and civil society to establish development and
solidarity plans to listen to one of the most vulnerable sectors of our society.
Developing legal venues that will strengthen the full citizenship of the gay, lesbian,
bisexual and transgender community is indispensable. We need to educate professionals
to raise their awareness about the reality and particular needs of this sector (Uldall &
Palmer, 2004). Community organizations must have sufficient support to continue
developing programs for and by this community.
• Exploring the perception of exclusion
Taking into consideration the fact that it is difficult to deny popular wisdom and
the amount of anecdotal accounts that manifest homophobia in our country, we need
to compile information in a systematic manner. This way, we will be able to support
or reject the constant claim from a social sector that seems to perceive that it is excluded.
We asked ourselves the following questions: what is the level of exclusion perceived
by gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people in contemporary Puerto Rican society?
How do they perceive the violation of their civil rights? How do the members of the
GLBT community describe the events of prejudice and homophobia in their daily lives
in our country and what are the manifestations of homophobia by government
institutions?
On the other hand, if we talk about government agencies and the levels of rejection
and exclusion that could exist, we need to explore what the employees of these agencies
think. This will allow us to have a complete picture of the opinions of both the people
from the excluded population and those who supposedly exclude them. In view of this
perspective, we asked ourselves the following: how do the members of the security
forces, the judicial system and the agencies in charge of protecting and strengthening
the family in Puerto Rico perceive gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people?

II
METHOD
For this research, we developed a mixed methodology research model in order to

obtain quantitative and qualitative information to respond to the research questions.
The quantitative model was developed through a survey of members from the gay,
lesbian, bisexual and transgender community in Puerto Rico.
The qualitative section consisted in 88 interviews with personnel who work at
government agencies in the country. The government agencies that were selected were
the Administration for Families and Children (ADFAN, Spanish acronym) of the
Department of the Family, the Puerto Rico Police Department, the Department of
Justice and the Court Administration. Furthermore, we organized two focus groups
at ADFAN and five at the Department of Justice.
The personnel of the Court Administration did not participate in the research.
After numerous attempts to establish communication and coordination, telephone
calls and letters from the executive management of the CDC, it was impossible to
coordinate their participation in the research with the court administrator judge. The
research team, after consulting the CDC, decided to eliminate this agency from the
sample of participants taking into consideration the difficulties in securing their
participation and the ethical implications of imposing a research project on this agency.
• Whose opinions did we request in the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community?
The most important criterion used to select the sample who participated in the
interviews was availability, providing that we do not know the universe of the gay,
lesbian and transgender population in Puerto Rico. However, in order to identify a
broad sample that would in some way give all the people from the GLBT community
an opportunity to participate, we used various recruitment strategies for this sector of
the sample. First, we identified important contact sectors of the GLBT population
in Puerto Rico. This was attained mainly by identifying contact persons in different
regions of the country: San Juan, Caguas, Ponce, Arecibo, Mayagüez and Fajardo.
We also used the recruitment procedure of snowball sampling, through which
participants helped us identify other potential participants. This process helped us
recruit people from sectors of the GLBT community who rarely participate in this type
of study. In some sectors of the community, we used what is known as “gatekeepers”
or key people in the community who facilitated our access to sectors of the population
that are traditionally difficult to access. These included ministers, leaders of the GLBT
community, personnel from organizations that provide health services to the GLBT
community, self-help groups and social groups.
We identified people who have been recognized members of the GLBT community
in Puerto Rico to help us in the process of identifying participants. This allowed us
to attend radio shows aimed at the GLBT community, religious services, social gatherings
and professional activities.
As an important strategy, we made mass recruitment in the gay pride parade held
in June 2006. At this activity, we placed a table to, in an organized fashion, offer the
people who attended the parade an opportunity to answer the questionnaire. Finally,
it is important to indicate that we offered a financial incentive to the people who
participated in the quantitative interview for the GLBT community. We used this
technique even though we acknowledge that this strategy could in some way jeopardize
the voluntary nature of the participation. However, we believe that the benefit we
obtained is greater than the possibility of a biased participation due to the incentive.
Taking into consideration the stigmatization and secret nature of this population
and the difficulties in appropriately estimating the universe of gay, lesbian, bisexual
and transgender people in Puerto Rico, we believed that a potential sample of 1,000
participants was appropriate. In the end, 929 people from the GLBT community in
Puerto Rico participated. We recognize that the number of participants (929) is
appropriate and we do not know of any other study conducted with this community
in Puerto Rico that has attained this number of participants.
• To interview employees of government agencies

The criterion used for the qualitative interviews was a random selection of people
who work at the agencies. The size of the samples for the qualitative interviews (30
key informants employed at the agencies) was estimated based on previous efforts of
the researchers with qualitative techniques and using the criterion of saturation of
information. We had found this level of saturation in multiple studies when we
interview 30 subjects. After selecting the sample, we were able to begin compiling data
by using the selected instruments.

a. Ethical Issues in the Protection of the Participants and Legal Issues of the Study
The ethical and legal protection of the participants was a priority throughout
the study. Due to the sensitive nature of the compiled information and the
marginalization that this population faces, we took several steps to ensure confidentiality
at all times. These steps, save when otherwise specified, applied to the people who
participated in the different phases of the study. Some of these steps included:
- Confidentiality and anonymity

All the information provided by the participants was completely anonymous. Only
codes were used to identify the instruments of the study. Names and other personal
information that could identify the participants or the documents they filled in
were never collected. The surveys and interviews were conducted in completely
confidential places where the participants could not be identified by other people.
- Consent sheet
All participants received a consent sheet, which was explained to them and which
clarified: 1) the purpose of the research, 2) the voluntary nature of their participation,
3) the fact that they could leave the activity or stop participating at any time,
4) the risks and benefits of their participation, 5) the confidentiality that would be
maintained when they participated and 6) the fact that their participation would
be audio-recorded (in the case of the interviews of key informants). The consent
sheet was signed, initialed or marked with an ‘x’ at the participants’ discretion to
avoid obtaining identifying information. Each sheet was discussed to ensure that
the participants understood the information it contained.
- Not judging the obtained information
All participants had the right not to be judged by the information they provided
regarding their attitudes, beliefs and sexual behaviors. Part of the training provided
to the people who participated in the compilation of study data included respecting
the answers of the people as an important ethical issue.
The information that was compiled in the study is completely anonymous and no
public or private organization or agency of the government of Puerto Rico will have
access to the individual data. No legal or administrative action may be filed against
any participant in the study as a result of the information he or she provided during
same. As part of the process to protect the human subjects who participated in the
research, we submitted the research protocol to the Institutional Committee for the
Protection of Human Beings in Research (CIPSHI, Spanish acronym) of the Río Piedras
Campus of the University of Puerto Rico for its approval. Since the initial authorization
was valid for one year, we requested a renewal of the certification.
Based on the implemented method, we compiled a significant amount of information
related to the study objectives, which may be examined in the results section below.
b. Participants
• Participants in the Survey for the Gay, Bisexual, Lesbian and Transgender Community
These participants made up the most important and key sample of this study.
A total of 929 people from the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) community
in Puerto Rico who met the following selection criteria, participated in this survey:
- To participate voluntarily in the study
- To identify themselves as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender
- To be 21 or older
The total number of participants was divided into 52% males, 46% females and 2%
who identified themselves and transsexual or transgender. Table 1 shows information
about the gender reported by the participants.
Table 1 • Gender with which participants identified themselves
GENDER n PERCENT
Male 481 52.0
Female 425 45.9
Transgender 8 .9
Transsexual 11 1.2
Did not answer 4
Table 2 shows information about the age of the participants, and Figure 1 shows
data about the sexual orientation reported by the participants.

Table 2 shows information about the age of the participants, and Figure 1 shows data
about the sexual orientation reported by the participants.
Table 2 • Age of participants
AGE FREQUENCY PERCENT

Under 25 221 24.0
26-35 261 28.3
36-45 258 28.0
46-55 153 16.6
56 or older 29 3.1
Did not answer 7
We must point out that the average age was 35 years old with a standard deviation of
12. Furthermore, we can see that 47% of the participants identified themselves as gay,
41% as lesbian and 11% as bisexual.
Figure 1
11%
Gay Lesbian Bisexual

47%
42%
The sample of participants seems to be an educated sample. An important number

of participants reported to have college degrees. 53% reported to have graduate studies.
Only 15% of the people reported to have finished high school or less. Table 3 shows
the distribution of the people who participated in the survey according to the level of
education they reported.
Most (92%) of the participants reported that they were Puerto Rican, followed by
a small number of people (N=33) who identified themselves as American (US). Other
reported nationalities include Dominican (N=12), Cuban (N=9) and Venezuelan (N=5).
Table 4 shows the distribution of the participants according to the national origin they
reported.
Table 3 • Highest level of education attained by participants
LEVEL OF EDUCATION FREQUENCY PERCENT

Did not finish high school 35 3.8
High school diploma 101 10.9
College-level courses 255 27.5
Bachelor’s Degree 325 35.1
Master’s Degree 132 14.3
PhD 36 3.9
Other 42 4.5
Did not answer 3
Table 4 • National origin of participants
NATIONALITY FREQUENCY PERCENT

Puerto Rican 857 92.4
Dominican 12 1.3
American (US) 33 3.6
Cuban 9 1.0
Colombian 2 .2
Venezuelan 5 .5
Other 9 1.0
Did not answer 2
Most of the participants (N=577, 63%) reported that they were employed full-time.
Twenty-five percent indicated that their income was less than $10,000; 12% that it was
over $51,000. Table 5 and Figure 2 present the data about employment and income,
respectively, as reported by the people who participated in the survey.
Table 5 • Participants who reported to be employed full-time
EMPLOYED FULL-TIME FREQUENCY PERCENT

Yes 577 62.6
No 344 37.4
Total 921 100.0
Did not answer 8

Figure 2 • Annual income reported by participants
Less than $10,000
30
$10,000 < $21,000
Percent of Participants 24 26 26 26
25 $21,000 < $31,000
20 $31,000 < $41,000
15 12 $41,000 < $51,000
10 > than $51,000
6
5
0
% Anual Income
In summary, we could say that the participants in the survey are a group of Puerto
Rican people, equally distributed between men and women, who mainly identify
themselves as gay or lesbian, with an average age of 35 years, educated, most of whom
are employed full-time, and half of whom have an annual income of more than $21,000.
• Participants in the Focused Interviews: Employees of the Participating Agencies

Employees of ADFAN, the Department of Justice and the Police Department
participated in the interviews. The people who were interviewed were chosen randomly
from employee lists produced by the Personnel Offices of each agency. The people
who participated in the interviews were regular employees at the agencies.
Table 6 shows the number of people who participated in the interviews at each of
the government agencies that were selected.
Table 6 • Personnel from government agencies who participated in the qualitative interviews
and the focus groups for discussion
AGENCY ALL INTERVIEW FOCUS GROUP

Administration for Families (ADFAN) 44 31 13
Department of Justice 44 29 15
Puerto Rico Police Department 28 28 -
Court Administration 0 0 0
Total 116 88 28
Most of the interviewees were female (65%, N=75). The average age of the people
who were interviewed was 41 years old with a range between 26 and 63 years old. Table
7 shows the demographic information of the interviewees in total and by participating
agency.
Table 7 • Demographic information of the people who were interviewed in general and by
participating agency
VARIABLE TOTAL AGENCY

ADFAN Justice Police
Total Participants 116 44 44 28
Average Age (in years) 41 42 44 36
Sex Percentages
Male 35 18 43 48
Female 65 82 57 52
Education
High School 4 4 4 4
College-level courses 4 0 4 11
Associate Degree 11 0 0 48
Bachelor’s Degree 36 61 11 33
Master’s Degree 21 35 21 4
PhD 16 0 43 0
Other 44 44 44 44
6 0 16 1
Income
10,000 -19,999 6 14 2 0
20,000 - 29,999 39 51 14 62
30,000 - 39,999 20 23 11 31
40,000 - 49,999 6 7 5 7
50,000 or more 28 5 68 0

c. Instruments
Instruments used to compile the information for the research

To achieve the objectives the study, we used various instruments that allowed us
to compile the necessary information to answer the research questions we had established.
Below, we will describe each of the instruments. For clarity, we have divided this
description into the quantitative and qualitative instruments.
• Informed Consent Form

We developed two informed consent forms explaining the nature of the study to
the potential participants and what was expected from their participation. The first
consent sheet was addressed to people from the GLBT community who were interested
in participating in the self-administered survey, and the second consent sheet was
addressed to key informants who were employees of the government agencies and were
invited to participate in the structured interview. Both sheets provided information
about the potential risks of participating in the study, ways in which the risks to
confidentiality would be minimized, the benefits they could expect from their
participation and their right not to answer any questions or to withdraw from the study
at any time without penalty. After the study was explained to each person, they were
given the consent sheet so that they would read it, and they were asked if they had any
questions or doubts for the researcher or his representative. After clarifying any doubts,
if the person agreed to participate, they could choose to sign the consent sheet, initial
it or mark it with an ‘x’ if they wished to remain anonymous.
This procedure, as well as the entire the research protocol, was approved by the
Institutional Committee for the Protection of Human Beings in Research (CIPSHI,
Spanish acronym) of the Río Piedras Campus of the University of Puerto Rico in
submitted protocol #0506-001.
• Quantitative Questionnaire
The quantitative questionnaire was a self-administered survey. The origin of the
questionnaire is multisectorial since the final version is the product of discussions
among the researcher and the research team, the review of the literature, suggestions
from the Advisor y Committee and examples of similar instr uments.
The Advisory Committee consisted of members of the GLBT community and
activists. The responsibilities of that committee consisted in providing feedback
regarding the methodology of the study, making recommendations to recruit the
participants, serving as a liaison with members of the GLBT community and looking
after and protecting the interests of the people from the community who participated
in the study.
The survey questionnaire consisted of 88 items corresponding to six parts that dealt
with the following dimensions:
1. Demographic characteristics of the participants
2. Experiences of victimization for being gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender
3. Perception of rejection and discrimination at government agencies
in Puerto Rico
4. Personal perception of homosexuality and lesbianism
5. Perception of social exclusion or rejection
6. Perception of stigma about homo/bisexuality and/or
lesbianism/transgenderism
Dimensions two and three were developed by the principal researcher by taking
and adapting items from Herek’s victimization scale (1988). Dimension number four
used as a basis the work of García (1984) and Toro-Alfonso & Varas-Díaz (2005) regarding
the prejudice and social distance shown toward homosexuality. Dimension number 5
was developed by the principal researcher and had the objective of identifying the
perception of social exclusion that the participants may have due to their sexual or
gender orientation. Finally, the sixth dimension was also developed by the principal
researcher and tried to identify the perception of stigma about homosexuality as
perceived by the participants.
Once the survey was developed, the research personnel reviewed same to ensure
that the language of each item was sensitive and understandable for the population at
which it was addressed. After this review, some linguistic corrections were made to
facilitate the understanding of each item.
Finally, the interview was reviewed by the Advisory Committee and its
recommendations were incorporated. After those corrections, the final format of the
survey was complete.
• Qualitative Interviews
During this study, we used two qualitative instruments that were administered in
the format of a semi-structured interview. The instruments had the objective of
compiling information about the perception of the employees of the government
agencies that were selected to participate in the research. We will examine each one
individually.
• Guide for the Interview with the Employees of the Participating Government Agencies
This interview guide consisted of 38 open-ended questions dealing with the following
topics: 1) experiences of prejudice or rejection toward homosexuals in the agencies
where the participants work, 2) knowledge about and attitudes toward the GLBT
community, 3) perception about the human rights of the GLBT community, 4) knowledge

about public policies at the agency related to the GLBT community, 5) interest and
suggestions about possible training regarding the GLBT community at the agency, 6)
levels of stigmatization toward the GLBT community and 7) attitudes and social distance
shown toward the GLBT community.
• Guide for the Focus Group

This group interview guide consisted of questions dealing with the following topics:
1) experiences at the agencies where the participants work, 2) knowledge about and
attitudes toward the GLBT community, 3) human rights and stigma toward homosexuality,
4) public policy issues regarding the rights of the GLBT community and 5) interest in
training and suggested topics for same.
The focus groups were recorded and transcribed for later analysis. Focus groups
were held at ADFAN and the Department of Justice. There is detailed information
about the demographic data of the focus group participants in the participants section.
The participants in the focus groups shared the same general characteristics of the
employees who were interviewed individually. The information provided by the
participants in the focus groups mostly coincided with and served to corroborate the
comments made by the people in the individual interviews.
As with the quantitative survey, this qualitative guide was reviewed by the research
team and the Advisory Committee. Their recommendations were related to simplifying
the language. After incorporating these recommendations, the interview guides for
the study were complete.
d. Procedure
The procedure to conduct this research relied on the collaboration of many people
and entities, including the researchers, the research team, University of Puerto Rico
students, contact persons in the GLBT community, the Advisory Committee and the
contact persons at each of the agencies. After developing the instruments that we used
in the study, the procedure of same consisted of four specific phases: 1) training the
interviewers, 2) compiling the quantitative sample, 3) coordinating the qualitative
interviews and randomly selecting the participants and 4) preparing quantitative and
qualitative databases. Below, each phase is described in detail.
The research personnel conducted the qualitative interviews with the key informants
and established communication with the contact persons to distribute the questionnaires
in the GLBT community. They received individual training about the dimensions of
the interviews, qualitative interview techniques and the development of follow-up
questions during the interview process. Besides this training, we held several meetings
and telephone conversations and sent e-mails in which we explored implementation
challenges and strategies to overcome them.
We held a meeting with the commissioners of the Civil Rights Commission to
formally present to them the research protocol as it was originally approved in discussions
with the executive director. The executive director sent a letter to the secretaries of
the government departments that were chosen to participate in the study. In this letter,
he identified the researchers and requested the collaboration of the departments.
Each department secretary assigned a special assistant to meet with the researchers
and coordinate the participation of his or her personnel in the interviews. After
obtaining authorization, we asked each human resources office to provide a list of the
agency personnel with the employees’ names and the offices or divisions and geographical
areas where they worked. From these lists, we randomly chose the people who would
be invited to participate in the interviews at each agency.
• Preparation of Databases
The data compiled through the quantitative surveys was coded and stored using
the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS v.12) version 12 software. The
research personnel developed the database and supervised the cleaning of same to make
sure that there were no mistakes between the compiled data and the data in the database.
Undergraduate students, together with the research personnel, entered the data into
the software. These students were trained to use the software and received academic
credit for their collaboration with the data entry and the transcription of the interviews.
We hired two typists at the University of Puerto Rico to transcribe the recorded
interviews. The research project personnel listened to the recordings again and reviewed
the typed transcripts to guarantee the work and the consistency of the transcription.
Later on, they were reviewed by the researchers to supervise the content and the style
of the transcription. After the preparation of the data was complete, we went on to
analyze same.

III
3
ANALYSIS
Since the design of this study was mixed and quantitative and qualitative techniques
were integrated, the analysis of the findings was divided into two parts corresponding
to each type of technique. Let us examine each technique independently.
a. Quantitative Analysis
The quantitative analysis was performed using the SPSS v.12 software. It
included descriptive analyses such as frequencies and dispersions of each variable of
the study, the calculation of the score levels in the scales that warranted it and the
analysis of the correlations between the study variables. The findings of these analyses
are included in the results section of this report.
b. Qualitative Analysis
The qualitative analysis was performed with a content analysis guide with
categories based on the interview questions and with thematic concerns that arose
during the interviews. By using these guides, the researches analyzed the content of
the transcripts. The unit of analysis was the topic, since it allowed us to code words,
phrases and paragraphs related to the topics of the guides (Ander-Egg 1980; 2001).
The final codes were stored by using the NUDIST NVIVO software for qualitative
analysis.
3
We would like to thank Dr. Iván Andujar-Bello and Dr. Yarimar Rodríguez for their statistical analysis and their advice regarding
the interpretation of the data. Samantha Love is a famous transsexual performer in Puerto Rico.
IV
RESULTS
a. Quantitative Phase: GLBT Community
• Victimization Experiences
Most of the participants (N=588, 63%) reported that they had been victims of
verbal insults because of their homosexuality. Close to 11% of the participants reported
that at some point they had been denied a service at a government agency. Other
people reported that they had been “kicked out or chased,” “beaten or kicked,” or that
“an object had been thrown” at them because of their sexual orientation. Tables 8, 9
and 10 show the number of participants who reported having any victimization experience
related to their sexual orientation. These experiences included: 1) insults, 2) objects
thrown and 3) beatings.
Table 8 • Participants who reported having been insulted because of their sexual orientation
PARTICIPANT FREQUENCY PERCENT

No 337 36.4
Yes 588 63.6
Did not answer 4
Table 9 • Participants who reported having had objects thrown at them because of their sexual
orientation

No 760 82.3
Yes 164 17.7
Did not answer 5
Table 10 • Participants who reported having been beaten or kicked because of their sexual
orientation

No 819 88.5
Yes 106 11.5
Did not answer 4

Thirty-two percent of the participants reported that at some point they have feared
for their lives while at a public place and that it was related to their sexual orientation.
Table 11 • Participants who reported having feared for their lives at public places

No 627 67.9
Yes 296 32.1
Did not answer 6
Furthermore, in relation to their sexual orientation, 57% of the participants reported

having been bothered or harassed by a coworker.
Table 12 • Participants who have been bothered by coworkers

No 401 43.4
Yes 523 56.6
Did not answer 5
• Experiences in Government Agencies in Puerto Rico

The participants reported having had experiences of rejection at government
agencies (N=387, 43%). Figure 3 shows the distribution of people who reported having
been discriminated against by employees or personnel from any government agency
in Puerto Rico. These experiences refer to a perception of prejudice, suspicious looks,
mumbled comments, jokes and insulting laughter.
Figure 3 • Participants who reported any discriminatory experience with employees
With regard to the agencies that participated

No 57%
in the study, 30% of the participants reported having
had experiences of rejection with the police, 9% in
offices of the court or of justice and 8% in offices
of the Department of the Family. Tables 13, 14 and
15 show the distribution of the people who reported
Yes 43% any perception of rejection at the abovementioned
agencies.
Table 13 • Participants who reported any discriminatory experience at a police station or with
a police officer

Yes 273 29.9
No 641 70.1
Did not answer 15
Table 14 • Participants who reported any discriminatory experience at any office of justice or
of the court or with any officer of the court

Yes 84 9.2
No 827 90.8
Did not answer 18
Table 15 • Participants who reported any discriminatory experience at any office of the
Administration for Families and Children (ADFAN, Spanish acronym)

Yes 72 7.9
No 838 92.1
Did not answer 19
An additional eleven percent (11%) reported discriminatory experiences at other

government offices, among which the Department of Education, the Department of
Labor and the Department of Health stand out. Table 16 shows the distribution of
other agencies where the participants reported having had experiences of discrimination.
Out of the people who reported any experience of discrimination or exclusion at
government agencies and who pointed out the specific persons with whom they had
experiences that they consider discriminatory, the experiences with police officers,
secretarial staff and receptionists at the various agencies and supervisory personnel
stand out.

Table 16 • Other agencies in Puerto Rico where the participants have had discriminatory
experiences
AGENCY FREQUENCY PERCENT

No experience at other agencies 848 91.2
Department of Education 19 2.2
Department of Labor 11 1.1
Department of Health 10 1.0
Department of the Treasury 5 .5
Red Cross 3 .2
Housing 2 .2
Public Works 2 .2
Medical Emergencies 2 .2
Municipal Governments 2 .2
Corrections Administration 1 .1
Regulations and Permits
Administration 1 .1
(ARPE, Spanish Acronym)
Fire Department 1 .1
Drivers’ Services Center
(CESCO, Spanish acronym) 1 .1
Corrections 1 .1
Department of Consumer Affairs
(DACO, Spanish acronym) 1 .1
Natural Resources 1 .1
Press 1 .1
Community Services 1 .1
Environmental Quality 1 .1
Planning 1 .1
Legislature 1 .1
Table 17 shows the positions held by the employees or officials with whom the
participants indicated they have had any discriminatory experiences.
Table 17 • Specific positions mentioned by participants of the people with whom they have
had a discriminatory experience at any government agency
POSITION AT THE AGENCY FREQUENCY PERCENT

Police officer 236 25.4
Agency supervisor 149 16.0
Secretarial staff 139 14.9
Receptionist 126 13.5
Social Worker 49 5.2
Bailiff 45 4.8
Defense Attorney 27 2.9
Prosecutor 26 2.8
Other person at the agency 74 7.9
The total exceeds the sample of 929 persons because participants could choose more
than one person in one or more government agencies.
The perception of rejection of the people of the GLBT community indicates that
the government agencies that, in their opinion, discriminate the most against the
community include the Police Department (56%), the Court Administration (17%) and
the Administration for Families and Children (17%).
• Perception of Social Exclusion in Puerto Rico

Forty-seven percent of the participants believe that Puerto Rico is not a safe place
for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender persons. 17% indicated that their feelings
toward this statement were neutral and only 35% indicated that they agreed or partially
agreed with the statement that Puerto Rico is a safe country for persons from the
GLBT community.
Table 18 shows the distribution of the opinion of the participants regarding the
clarity of the policies of non-discrimination against homosexuals in Puerto Rico. The
table shows that 67% of the participants believe that the public policies regarding non-
discrimination in Puerto Rico are not clear. Only 20% of the participants believed
that the policies are clear.

Table 18 • Opinion of participants about whether non-discrimination public policies in
Puerto Rico are clear
OPINION FREQUENCY PERCENT

Completely disagree 333 36.1
Disagree 177 19.2
Partially disagree 109 11.8
Neutral 104 11.3
Partially agree 58 6.3
Agree 51 5.5
Completely agree 91 9.9
Total 923 100.0
Did not answer 6
Most of the participants believe that the majority of the people in Puerto Rico
discriminate against persons of the GLBT community. 54% of the participants believe
that most Puerto Ricans discriminate against the GLBT community. 12% of participants
indicated that their feelings toward this statement were neutral. Table 19 shows the
opinions of the participants regarding the discrimination of Puerto Ricans as compared
to the level of discrimination that they perceive from the employees of government
agencies.
Table 19 • Discrimination perceived from Puerto Ricans in general versus employees of

government agencies
Employees of
Puerto Ricans government agencies
PERCEIVED DISCRIMINATION FREQUENCY PERCENT FREQUENCY PERCENT
Completely disagree 207 22.5 203 22.0
Disagree 179 19.4 191 20.7
Partially disagree 119 12.9 140 15.2
Neutral 118 12.8 143 15.5
Partially agree 119 12.9 111 12.0
Agree 73 7.9 49 5.3
Completely agree 106 11.5 86 9.3
Total 921 100.0 923 100.0
Did not answer 8 6
Half of the participants believe that it is dangerous to reveal one’s sexual orientation
in Puerto Rico. Fourteen percent of the participants feel neutral about the dangerousness
of revealing one’s sexual orientation. Two-thirds of the participants believe that the
GLBT population does not have the same social space and acceptance as the heterosexual
population at government agencies in Puerto Rico. Table 20 shows the opinions of the
participants regarding the statement that both the GLBT population and the heterosexual
population have the same acceptance at government agencies.
Table 20 • Opinion of the participants about whether the GLBT population has the same social
space and acceptance as the heterosexual population at government agencies in
Puerto Rico
OPINION FREQUENCY PERCENT

Completely disagree 394 43.2
Disagree 185 20.3
Partially disagree 94 10.3
Neutral 100 11.0
Partially agree 45 4.9
Agree 27 3.0
Completely agree 68 7.4
Did not answer 16
• Perception of Stigma toward Homosexuality, Lesbianism, Bisexuality

The level of the stigma toward homosexuality perceived by the participants is moderately
high. On a stigma scale of 15 to 75 points, the average score of the participants was 50
points. For this scale, the cutoff points were established as shown on Table 21.
Table 21 • Cutoff points in the scale for the perception of stigma toward homosexuality
LEVEL OF PERCEPTION OF STIGMA CUTOFF POINTS FREQUENCY PERCENT

Low Perception 15 - 34 64 6.8
Moderate Perception 35 - 54 494 53.1
High Perception 55 - 75 276 29.7
Did not answer 95 10.2

Figure 4 shows the distribution of the participants in the scale for the perception of
stigma toward homosexuality in Puerto Rico. The average score of the participants
in that scale was 50.
Figure 4 • Distribution of participants by perceived stigma toward homosexuality
60
53
50
40
Percent
%
30
30
20
10
6.8
0
Low Perception Moderate Perception High Perception
Levels of Perception
b. Quantitative Phase: Employees of Government Agencies
• Prejudice and Social Distance

As part of the interview with the employees of the government agencies, we
administered a prejudice scale (García, 1984) to identify the level of prejudice shown
by the participants toward the people from the GLBT community. This scale allowed
us to obtain a total score in order to determine the level of prejudice shown by each
person. To do this, all of the items of the scale had to be answered; therefore, the total
sample for this scale consists of 91 participants.
The minimum possible score was 46 points and the maximum was 230; the higher
the score, the greater the level of prejudice that was shown. We calculated the total
scores for each of the participants. In this population, the minimum score obtained
was 114 and the maximum was 181, with an average of 154 points. Once we obtained
the total scores, we calculated the cutoff points in order to determine the levels of
prejudice in the continuum of 114 to 181. We established the cutoff points in the 33.33
and 66.66 percentiles. This allowed us to establish three groups as follows: 1) low level
of prejudice, 2) moderate level of prejudice and 3) high level of prejudice. Figure 5 shows
the distribution of the participants within the groups for the levels of prejudice. Thirty-
five percent (n=32) of the participants showed moderate levels of prejudice.
Figure 5 • Levels of prejudice shown by the employees of government agencies
40
31 32
28
30
1. Low level of prejudice
2. Moderate level of prejudice
Frequency
20
3. High level of prejudice
10
Std. Dev =.81
Mean = 2
0 N = 91.00
1 2 3
Levels of Prejudice
When we examine the results according to the gender of the participants, we can
see that the scores for females (n=31) ranged between 117 and 170 points. As shown in
Figure 6, the females who participated in this study show a moderate level of prejudice
(35%, n=14) toward the population of gays and lesbians. On the other hand, the males
who participated in the study show low levels of prejudice (36.7%, n=22) toward the
population of gays and lesbians.
Figure 6 • Prejudice shown by the sample of participating females
16
14
14
12
1. Low level of prejudice
10 9
8 2. Moderate level of prejudice
Frequency
8
6
4
2 Std. Dev =.75
Mean = 1.97
0 N = 31.00
1.00 2.00 3.00
Prejudice Scale Groups

Figure 7 • Social prejudice shown by the participating males
30
22
20 1. Low level of prejudice
20 18
Frequency
10
Std. Dev =.84
Mean = 1.97
0 N = 60.00
1.00 2.00 3.00
Prejudice Scale Groups
The scale of social distance evaluates the social distance from gays and lesbians
(García, 1984). This scale provides a score ranging from 10 to 50 points. At the same
time, it allows us to obtain a total score to determine the level of social distance shown
by the participants toward the people from the GLBT community. In the case of the
social distance scale (n=100), the scores ranged from 10 to 34. With these results, we
then determined the cutoff points for the groups according to the level of social distance.
As with the prejudice scale, the cutoff points that were established correspond to the
33.33 and 66.66 percentiles to establish three equal groups. The distribution of the
groups is shown in Figure 8. As we can see, 45.7% (n=53) of the participants showed a
low level of social distance, followed by 25% (n=29) of high social distance and, finally,
the group of moderate social distance that represented 15.5% of the participants.
We made an analysis by gender to evaluate the levels of social distance of the
participants according to sexual preference (gays and lesbians). These results are shown
in Figures 8 through 12. First (Figures 8 and 9), we can see the results obtained by the
males who participated in the study. They showed moderate levels of social distance
toward gay men and lesbian women. Then, we have Figures 10, 11 and 12 which show
the levels of social distance reported by the females of the sample. We can see moderate
levels of social distance toward both gay men and lesbian women. On the other hand,
we can see that the moderate levels had a greater frequency for the social distance from
gay men.
Figure 8 • Social distance shown by the participating males toward gays
20
17
13 1. Low level of prejudice
Frequency
10 3. High level of prejudice

5
Std. Dev =.69
Mean = 2.23
0 N = 35.00
1.00 2.00 3.00
Groups for Social Distance from Gay Men
Figure 9 • Social distance shown by the participating males toward lesbians
20
19 13 1. Low level of prejudice
Frequency
10 3. High level of prejudice
4
Std. Dev =.65
Mean = 2.25
0 N = 36.00
1.00 2.00 3.00
Groups for Social Distance from Lesbian Women
Figure 10 • Social distance reported by the government employees (n =100)

60
53
50
1. Low social distance
40
2. Moderate social distance
Frequency
30 29
3. High social distance
20 18
10 Std. Dev =.88
Mean = 2
0 N = 100.00
1 2 3
Level of Social Distance

Figure 11 • Social distance shown by the participating females toward gays
20
17
13
Frequency
10
5
Std. Dev =.69

Mean = 2.23
0 N = 35.00
1.00 2.00 3.00
Groups for Social Distancel from Gay Men
Figure 12 • Social distance shown by the participating females toward lesbians

40
38
30
Frequency
20 18
10
10
Std. Dev =.64
Mean = 2.12
0 N = 66.00
1.00 2.00 3.00
Groups for Social Distancel from Lesbian Women
c. Qualitative Phase: Employees of Government Agencies
• Discriminatory Experiences at the Agencies Where They Work

Most of the people who were interviewed at all the government agencies indicated
that they did not believe that there were manifestations of discrimination or prejudice
against people from the GLBT community in Puerto Rico at the particular agency
where they work. Frequently, they stated that the fact that gay and lesbian persons
were hired at their agencies should evidence the absence of discrimination. Some
people pointed out that they did not know about events of discrimination against the
people who received services at the agency. Some people who were interviewed said
the following:
By Way of Exclusion• 43
So far, I haven’t had that experience because here we treat
everybody equally, we interview all of them, um, equally, we
do not have… we do not have any type [of discrimination] as
far as I have observed, have heard or have seen, not at all. At
this time, no. [ADFAN, female]
That I have sensed that, that I have detected, sensed, no, I

mean that a… that my coworkers or that… it’s referring to
whether my coworkers or the agency as such discriminates,
not that I have detected. [ADFAN, female]
Uh… I have been able to see that there are people who have
that type of preference and they are working at our agency,
that’s why I believe that there is no discrimination [ADFAN,
female]
I have been working at this agency for 18 years, and during

those 18 years, I don’t think so. This agency has not had
[instances] of that discrimination to have people working
[there]. No, I don’t think so. [ADFAN, female]
Many homosexual [and] lesbian couples come here to this

office and they are… I have seen that they have been treated
like everybody else. [ADFAN, female]
At the Department of the Family, we have the social concept,

we understand the integrity of human beings, of not
discriminating (against) anybody. We are here to provide
certain services in a general manner and we cannot be biased
in favor of anybody nor discriminate against anybody, either
for their way of thinking, religion, social status, etcetera.
[ADFAN, male]
According to my experience, we work with victims of crime;

although I worked at another agency instead of with victims,
with people accused of crimes, and there were also people
with different sexual preferences, and we always maintained
our professionalism. [Justice, male]
…here we have received all… that type of person, and we have

received them as any other citizen. It might have happened
that police officers, for example, that they have arrived and…

and have looked at them, that they see them, they know, and
they try to ask. But our rule of… even… even if we know about
the case, “We don’t know about the case, that case isn’t ours,
a prosecutor has that case, we aren’t going to… we don’t
intervene.” [Justice, male]
Well, I, in my opinion, according to my work, um, at least on

my part, I don’t think so, no, there’s no type of discrimination.
[Police, male]
I believe that there is no discrimination. Uh, there are fellow

male and female officers here who belong to those genders,
and, well, they are treated the same way as the other fellow
officers. We are all on the same boat, you know, we are good
friends, good coworkers, and they are never rejected, neither
by the supervisors nor by us. [Police, male]
I don’t think so. I have male and female coworkers who have
their sexual preferences and they are people who give their all
to their work. They are good coworkers and they have their
position in their sexual preference, I believe. [Police, male]
So far, I haven’t had that experience because here we treat

everybody equally, we interview all of them, um, equally, we
do not have… we do not have any type [of discrimination] as
far as I have observed, have heard or have seen, not at all. At
this time, no. [ADFAN, female] [REPETIDO OJO]
y tienen su posición en su preferencia sexual entiendo yo.[
Policía hombre]
At least from what I have seen, well, no, I haven’t seen any
type of discrimination in that sense, the population along
those lines {sigh} is limited. In relation to my cases, I have
had… I have had cases of child abuse, where… right? Where
there was a lesbian couple and we worked on it as if it had
been any other couple. [Justice, male]
Although other people who were interview indicated that, in fact, there is no
discrimination at the agencies where they work, they do give some instances in which
the employees distinguish the people who come to receive services. They show concern
about the language that is used and demonstrate confusion about how to refer to the
GLBT community. A police officer who was interviewed said the following:
I understand that position because I have been working for
a public housing project for 19 years and… and I have… I mean,
in my work area, there are people who belong to that… to
that… gender. [Police, male]
I believe that there is no discrimination. Uh, there are fellow

male and female officers here who belong to those genders,
and, well, they are treated the same way as the other fellow
officers. We are all on the same boat, you know, we are good
friends, good coworkers, and they are never rejected, neither
by the supervisors nor by us. [Police, male]
I worked with direct services, I worked with protecting minors

under 16, and you deal with that type, well, of people, right?
At least on my part, no, nor by my coworkers as far as I know.
[ADFAN, female]
Contradictorily, some people who were interviewed pointed out the presence of
discrimination and prejudice at the agencies. Although they could not—or did not
want to—describe the situations in detail, possibly due to fear of reprisals at work, they
did point out events that manifest the prejudice against the GLBT community. The
statements about the existence of discrimination at the agencies were vague and general.
Some of the people who were interviewed said the following:
…we have seen cases. You know, we have seen cases that have
shown that this type of… this type of discrimination exists.
[ADFAN, female]
I would say that I can’t say that there is a high percentage,

but I believe there is. Many times it can be like joking, others
because of the prejudices that the person might have. Um,
what I have mostly seen is that many times it is more difficult
for employees to form more of a relationship with a woman
who is a lesbian than with a person who is a homosexual male.
[ADFAN, female]
Well, at times, I have personally seen and heard the personnel

talk about other people they see in the waiting area or people
who even currently work at the agency itself. [ADFAN, male]

Yes, there is discrimination. At least on my part, I don’t deny
that I am gay and I know that there has been discrimination
at the agency from many of my coworkers. [ADFAN, male]
For example, I, who have worked in this type of job for nine
years, haven’t personally worked with [these] situations, but
I do know that this is the culture. At this agency, there are
[some], of course there are. Even if my coworkers say that
there isn’t, there is [discrimination], it exists. [ADFAN,
female]
…it could also be, um, a person, uh, um, who is very radical in
terms of religion, because there are also, um, very radical
people. What is black is black and what is white is white.
And… and based on what, uh, they believe that the Scriptures
say, they also tend to discriminate. [ADFAN, female]
Uh, in my capacity as supervisor, uh, I have had the experience

that several… several employees, when they have to work with
this population, uh, feel as if they had to work with them
differently. [ADFAN, female]
We have the help professionals who understand and know

what their limits are and work with everybody, and we have
the help professionals who know the limits, but when they
are faced with situations such as this one, that they see same
sex couples raising a girl, well, they remark on it. [ADFAN,
female]
Jokes, comments, all that type of thing that you can see. For
example, here they say, “Look, you are a faggot; look, that
other one is this; look, that one is so delicate.” That type of
thing and jokes about gays, about lesbians. [Justice, female]
…through the… the conduct and the behavior of some

coworkers at… at… at the agency. I am not talking about the
agency per se, at least what I have experienced is from… from
coworkers who in one way or another, well, don’t fully respect
anyone who could… who they might think isn’t… doesn’t share
their sexual inclinations. [Justice, male]
…well, everything you hear is joking, mockery, when they want
to insult somebody. They try to look for something negative.
[Justice, female]
…there really are people who, because of their personal

prejudices, show certain prejudices against people who they
believe are gay, lesbian or transsexual. You notice it in the
jokes made at the office. [Justice, male]
…you are supposed to, well, not be prejudiced against the

person whom you have already, um, identified, um, it happens
in situations where… where, for example, they see a person
file a complaint, um, they are generally the object of jokes;
sometimes, well, they are not served as they should be. [Police,
female]
Sometimes you… you see a bit of difference in terms of the

treatment, but it’s almost (pause) imperceptible, only people
who are very attentive could… could notice that there’s a bit
of discrimination… [Police, male]
So… if you are, um… effeminate, well, you can’t be on the

street a lot, you have to be in the office, if you are a woman,
well, then, they give you like a certain degree of freedom, and,
yes, it’s an obvious [case of] discrimination at any government
agency, especially here in the Police Department. [Police,
female]
…well, there are people, coworkers, who also criticize them

and you think that they don’t like them. [Police, male]
It has always existed. Here at the agency we at least understand

that, well, no, uh… uh, I don’t know how to explain it, but if
uh… even when they are hired they are marginalized because…
they are like in the closet, um… you know that there are people
who identify with… but I don’t know how to explain it, but
I know that there is. Gays and lesbians are treated differently
here. [Police, female]aquí. [Policía mujer]

Some people think that there is a silent, implicit policy at the agency that tends to
surreptitiously discriminate against gays and lesbians and other people from the GLBT
community. A social worker talked about an unspoken agreement at the agency regarding
the situation of adoptions:
That’s true. Um… well, not in writing or for… or positive or

negative. There’s nothing written, especially in the area of
adoptions, like I said, nor is there… I mean, no, that is like
most of the laws in Puerto Rico regarding homosexuals, it
goes into, well, the moral, religious and cultural aspect.
[ADFAN, female]
An employee of the Department of Justice offered the same impression when he said:
I wouldn’t say that… I mean, I could never say that there is

a… that there is… it isn’t that there’s a policy, it isn’t that there
is a… a line of cultural thought at the Department. But there
is one among the people who work in… in this Department.
As part… like I have seen in others… in other agencies where
I have worked, I mean, it is a silent matter, people talk about
it among… among themselves, um, um, but there is one, there
is one, there is one, you see it in the behavior of the people.
[Justice, male]
• Knowledge about and Attitudes toward the GLBT Community

The knowledge of the people who are employed at the agencies about the GLBT
community seems to be poor and characterized by myths and stereotypes. Even the
interviewees who said that they were not prejudiced, showed that they believed in
socially stereotyped myths regarding gays and lesbians. An important number of the
people who were interviewed said that they had strong religious beliefs that define gay
and lesbian people as sinful. A group of the interviewees resorted to the traditional
Judeo-Christian version that establishes that, “God hates the sin but loves the sinner.”
The perceptions about gays and lesbians of the people who were interviewed range
from a lifestyle, something natural, a simple difference in sexual orientation and
something just like heterosexuality to the perception of sin, perversion and degeneracy.
Although many of these people believe that their religious or moral perception about
sexual minorities prevents them from accepting this situation, immediately afterward
they indicate that as “professionals” they do not discriminate against the GLBT
community and that there is really no discrimination at their agencies. The variety of
perceptions about the GLBT community can be seen in the following comments:
That it is a lifestyle. Well, I believe that homosexuality is a

lifestyle, I don’t make any difference, at least in my personal
point of view, I don’t see any difference between a person who
is not [sic] homosexual and a person who is heterosexual.
[ADFAN, female]
I think that each person… it’s a personal decision, their private

lives are private. I think that nobody should interfere.
[ADFAN, female]
I think that it is an inclination. That everyone has the right

to have it and that each person has the right to live their life
as they see fit. In particular, I don’t belong to that community,
but I respect others and it really doesn’t affect me at all if
another person has that inclination. I see them as any other
human being. [Justice, female]
I think it’s an illness. It shouldn’t exist. I believe that it is an

illness. [Justice, female]
I am of the opinion that homosexual conduct is sinful.

However, I do not discriminate against homosexual persons.
Everybody is free to do whatever they want with their lives
and their actions. [ADFAN, female]
There are ideas that [it] might be [due to] genetic situations
for a man to have a sexual preference for the same sex. There’s
the philosophy that there was some incident in the development
of his or her life. And there’s the philosophy that, well, the
person enjoys, likes to be with people of the same sex. [Justice,
male]
…that behavior is wrong, although I respect it; I am very clear

on that. Personally, I have, um… some convictions that the
Bible says that man, uh… God made a man and a woman, uh…
it doesn’t say that… that in… nowhere in the Bible does it say
that… God accepts or… or… or allows relationships between
people of the same sex, uh… I have been taught and I have

read the… the Bible in terms of… of those teachings, right.
Although, again, I repeat, I am clear on the rights of each
person and I do respect everybody’s space, my convictions are
my own, but I understand that I cannot project them or… or…
or… um, impose them on other people, everyone has, uh… a
commitment to themselves to lead their lives as they think
best. [ADFAN, female]
They are sinful practices. I can bring up an experience [I had].

I belong to a Pentecostal church in the area of [ ]. Next to
our church, there are [some] transsexuals, and this year the
church thought about them in the sense of going out on the
street and sharing the plan for salvation, not waiting for them
to come here. Especially, we picked one night, around 10:00
at night and we went to that street, we approached them and
we talked to them. In fact, there was one person who came
to where we (were) and when we were going to talk [to him]
and we asked him, “What is your name?”, he said, “Which
name do you want me to give you? Well, my name is Mónica.”
I told him, “Mónica, I want you to know that the Lord loves
you just the way you are.” It was the fact of approaching them
to let them know that we were there and that we wanted them
to be part of our church and to be able to spend time with
them. We are clear on the type of work, but we agree on the
fact that they can share in God’s love and that they can feel
what we can feel. Leaving out the experience that they are
going to be intimate with people, that they could feel, could
listen to the word. [ADFAN, male]
I don’t agree [with it] much. But, uh, the fact that I do not
agree [with it] does not mean, right, that I don’t accept it, you
know. I don’t agree, but I think that these people have their
way of thinking, we must respect it as with any other person,
as, in my opinion, as the people who like a hundred women
and the one who likes one woman. Well, those people have
their… their… their way of thinking and we must respect it
to… as long as it doesn’t exceed my limits. I always say, “You
can do your thing over there and I will do mine.” I don’t have
that problem, I believe that to each his own preferences.
[Justice, male]
I wouldn’t like to spend time with people like that. I don’t
know what I would do if I had a child like that, maybe I would
have to change my way of thinking. For the time being, I do
not agree [with it] morally. I think that perhaps they are
religious principles that I learned since I was very little and
I don’t think it is right. Of course, they can be on the street
and everything, but in my personal terms, of saying I’m going
to go to a party at your house, I know that you are gay and
that you live with another woman and that all of your friends
are gay and they think it’s okay, well, I wouldn’t feel comfortable.
[Justice, female]
In my personal opinion, I believe that, uh, God created us,

for example, he created you as a woman and he created me as
a man, but obviously, well, if he… if he chose a certain… a
certain sex for us, obviously we have to be of the same sex;
that’s my way of thinking. [Police, male]
I believe that homosexuality is that… that it’s some genes that

each person has and they are born with them, and there are
people who define themselves as male and people who, being
male, believe that, uh, that their genes aren’t (laughter)… as
the psychologists say, that they are trapped, a man trapped in
a woman’s body or vice versa. [Police, male]
…I have no problem with homosexuality. I don’t dare tell you

that I think… because, at least, the experience I have had with
those people [is that] they are good, you know, I have friends,
I have, well, you see, a coworker, as I told you, as I explained,
uh… neighbors, um, people who are closely related to that.
I have never had problems with them, on the contrary, I am
friends with those people. Uh, my wife spends time with a
person who is from… who is gay, you know, and they are very
good friends, and I spend quite a lot of time with that person.
He respects me and I respect him. I have nothing negative
to say about them. [Police, male]
I believe that it’s a right that each person has, it’s completely
personal, even though I might not agree with it, but, well…
you have to give those people the opportunity to do what they
see fit with their lives. I believe that if we go to the biblical

term, I believe that… uh… it shouldn’t be like that, but that
is characteristic of them. [Police, male]
What I think is that they are people who maybe, well, went
through a process in life that wasn’t the appropriate one and
they are people who, well, I would say are sick because maybe,
as I said before, they didn’t go through a process where they
were really led in a culture where they had to be taught that…
that God created them male or female. [Police, male]
They are deviations of people, well, who are not defined in

terms of their sex as such and, well, they have that type of
deviation. [Police, male]
That is a lifestyle. Nobody is born… because God creates men

and women, everybody has the right to choose the lifestyle
they want. Um, I see it as something normal, I mean, I don’t…
I don’t criticize it or applaud it because everyone has their
own way of life. We have to respect it, we are all human
beings, we have freedom of expression and, as the constitution
says, nobody can discriminate on the basis of race or religion
or sex. Uh, at this time, well, obviously, homosexuality comes
up and they should be respected because that’s their personal
life, nobody can meddle in the personal life of each human
being, just as some people like men, others like women and
vice versa, um, nobody… nobody can… nobody can discriminate
against that and it’s a very personal lifestyle of each person.
[Police, female]
In my opinion it’s… maybe, I believe, that it could have been

relationship disappointments, frustrations, but I don’t think
that it’s something like they say that you are born with. [Police,
female]
I don’t understand it. I don’t know what causes it, if anything.

It makes no difference to me, they are sexual preferences that
they, well, I imagine that they like to satisfy based on their
same sex. For me, they are normal people. I like rice and
beans and you might like beefsteak. [Police, female]
Well, I’m not… I have nothing against [it]. Uh, each human
being is a breed apart, each person makes their decisions, but
I don’t… mix [with them] either. [Police, male]
I don’t believe in homosexuality much because I am a… I was
raised in church. And, well, I say that it’s something that has
to do with… um, well, like (silence)… they are problems that
some people already have… it might be that they also have
(clears his throat)… when they were growing up, lack of
attention or something like that as well and that nobody helped
them during their adolescence. [Police, male]
In particular, uh… I think that maybe they are, uh… like

damages… there are times when I think that they are like
mental damages that were caused, you know, that it isn’t a
learned behavior, but, well, a life experience during their lives
that, well, um… made them seek some type of company or
love from their same gender. [Police, female]
…I believe that it’s not natural and I would say, right?, since
I grew up in a religious environment, well, also that it’s sinful
when it becomes manifest. Do you understand? That a person,
well, if they feel that way… but once they demonstrate it and
carry it out, well, that’s when they commit, right?, the offense…
in my understanding. [Police, female]
…I base [it] on the principles of the Bible; it says very clearly

that God loves the sinner but hates the sin. [ADFAN, female]
…I am a Catholic. Homosexual or lesbian conduct, well, just

as the church, I condemn it, but not the people because I’m
not God to judge anyone. [ADFAN, female]
Well, as a religious person I believe that they are children of

God, and God loves the sinner, he doesn’t love the sin, you
know. I, as a Christian, cannot agree with what they do, but
not against them. Not them, you know, they are children of
God as much as I am, you know, and I have to see it like that
and I have to love them like that, [even though] I might not
agree with their behavior. But uh… uh… me being in contact
with them, not at all, not at all, um, my religious values are
against that, I’m going to treat them […] and I know… in fact,
I have friends and everything. [ADFAN, female]

…in religious terms, I think that these people… what is
established biblically is that God loves the sinner, what he
doesn’t love is the sin, what [the sinner] does. Then, what is
established biblically is that for a man to join a man, to sleep
with a man—these are expressions used in the Bible itself—
in a certain event shown in Genesis that the cities of Sodom
and Gomorrah, [where] there was that type of practice, were
destroyed. That type of practice isn’t approved biblically.
What I think is that these people have an opportunity for
salvation, but the only thing they need to do is to get close to
him. The change that may come, well, let it come in time,
whatever they want to allow him to work on. [ADFAN, male]
But, based on my Christian convictions, it’s the way that in

the Scriptures we can see that God seeks human beings and
wants to love human beings. “He loves the sinner, but He
doesn’t love the sin.” [Justice, male]
My church says (laughed)… Catholic [Church], that being

homosexual isn’t a sin nor does it go against God’s law or
anything like that (laughed), that the act, right, of two… of
two, um, that is a sin. [Justice, male]
In my opinion, it isn’t a normal behavior because God created

men and women. It isn’t that God rejects them, because He
doesn’t reject them, we are not going to reject them either.
God does reject what they do because it doesn’t follow his
laws. It isn’t in his mandate, and it isn’t what He did. [Justice,
female]
I am a Catholic and, based on that, I know that the Lord does

not reject homosexuals, the Lord rejects the… I mean, the act
as such. Because the Lord loves everybody equally, he loves
people who are homosexual, he rejects the act. [Justice, female]
That they are inappropriate behaviors. You know that, well,

that religion doesn’t… doesn’t… you know, it isn’t that it rejects
them because they are homosexual, because, well, the church
opens its doors to everybody who wants to go, but it does
reject the act, right? When they manifest their homosexuality,
well, by either living with a person of the same sex, well, [or]
having sexual relations with the same sex, well, that, well, is
condemned, I mean, that is rejected, that conduct. Not the
person… [Police, female]
Despite the religious convictions and the myths manifested by the people who
were interviewed, when they were asked if they believed that gay, lesbian, bisexual and
transgender people are entitled to live their lives as they wish, most people answered
that they were. They believe that people from the GLBT community are entitled to
live their lives, but they establish limits and conditions. Many of the conditions respond
precisely to the stereotypes that are manifested in the conversations of the participants.
Few interviewees made comments denying rights to the people of the GLBT community.
Yes, I believe that they, well, are the ones who work. Um…
nobody is going to pay them a salary, um, or pay for their
homes, for their cars, for the way they dress. [ADFAN, female]
That’s right. We believe that, if they have that preference,

they can live their lives the way they want because we can’t
change them. The important thing is that they don’t harm
others by living that life. [ADFAN, female]
Yes, because if they made the decision to live together or

separate or to have their [life]style, as long as they don’t want
to impose […] on others, or that they want to come as I have
also seen... I have seen it, I have seen that, that we have had
to work at the agency where they come [and say], “She or he
fell in love with me, [he/she] won’t leave me [female] alone,
[he/she] harasses me.” [ADFAN, female]
That, I mean, I always think the same thing, that gays, lesbians,
whoever, regardless, we can all live the life that we want as
long as we don’t, um… don’t… violate other people’s rights,
don’t restrict other people’s lives, right, don’t alter other
people’s lives. [ADFAN, female]
We all have the right to live our lives however we want as long
as… as our rights do not interfere with the rights of others…
that your rights end where the rights of others begin. [ADFAN,
female]

…they have the same rights as us as human beings. They have
the same rights, they live under the same law; on the contrary,
I think that some rights that have already been recognized in
Spain should be recognized to them; I think that it should be
recognized when a couple goes to get married and to acquire
the same rights that heterosexuals have. I see no difference.
[ADFAN, female]
Yes, definitely. They are human beings and that’s where we

have to start, regardless of their sexual preference. They have
the right to live, to work, to be treated with dignity. They
must be treated like human beings. We cannot lose the
perspective that they are human beings who have their dignity,
who have certain values, who have morals, who have certain
needs like anyone else. [Justice, male]
The acknowledgement of their rights is followed by multiple warnings; it seems that

although the people who were interviewed were willing to recognize that the people
of the GLBT community are entitled to live their lives… they make this right conditional.
Many of these warnings seem to be based on stereotypes about homosexuality,
promiscuity, licentiousness and lack of concern for the rights of others. The following
statements acknowledge the rights of gay people, but stress the limits of those rights.
Yes, of course, this is a democracy and everyone can do whatever

they want with their lives as long as they don’t harm others.
[Justice, female]
Not just them. All human beings should feel life like… as long
as they follow the rules of our government. [Justice, male]
I don’t think that a heterosexual couple should be allowed to

have sex in the Luis Muñoz Rivera Park, in… in… in Puerta
de Tierra in San Juan, where everyone can see. Do you
understand? Likewise, a homosexual couple [shouldn’t be
allowed] either. In that sense, well, I believe that they can’t
do whatever they please. In terms of their private life, yes, in
their private life they can do whatever they want, but over
there in their house, in their apartment, I don’t know, in their
private island if they have one, well (laughed). [Justice, male]
I think they have the right to choose, uh… their life, to choose
their lifestyle, but I also believe that that wish they have to
be free and be accepted, it must go hand in hand with not
violating anybody’s human rights, with not violating the rules
of coexistence, with not violating social norms. Once that is
done, I think that they have all the rights that the rest of us
have. [Justice, female]
As long as they don’t affect others. Just like any other person,
right, [who] is not in that group has the right to live however
they want, as long as they don’t affect others. [Justice, male]
Yes, as long as what… they live a normal life. I’m going to give
you my interpretation. Sometimes, I have noticed that when
you try to impose a requirement, where you are favored [over]
a normal human being, well, I object to that. I think that
sometimes in the fight they are asking for equality, [regarding]
that I believe that… I believe that they [should] have the same
rights as any human being, except that, for example, they try
to impose rules such as, “They have to give me preference for
‘x’ or ‘y’ thing because I am a homosexual.” I wouldn’t agree
with that because if the idea is for them to be integrated into
society in a normal way, well, creating that type of classification,
with benefits, detracts from it. Because, then, you are treating
them like a minority. In that sense, I agree that they should
lead a normal life, but if they want to integrate, no special
classifications should be created, um, because then they are
being classified again. [Justice, female]
Well, I think so, that they have… that everybody has the right
to live their lives as long as they don’t… I mean, your rights
end where my rights begin. As long as I don’t interfere in your
life, well, you don’t interfere in mine, that’s my policy. I mean,
who am I to judge, nor am I… nor do I want people to judge
my life. I mean, what can I say, I think so, that each person
should do whatever they want as long as you don’t intervene
in other people’s lives. [Justice, male]

I think so. Within, within, when… the question was, um,
whether they had the right to live life however they want. As
long as it is, um, following the rules of the law and without
violating the rights of others, well, I believe that, yes, that
they can make and remake their lives. [Police, female]
I belong to an agency of law and order, and I believe that we

can’t live however we want to, I mean, we have to follow
certain norms and certain rules; it is for the wellbeing of the
community in general. [Police, male]
…if being a lesbian, I adopt a, uh… girl, I am then going to

raise her according to what I believe. I am stimulating that
child to also be a lesbian. I mean, I am then not following
the… the rules, what is normal, because regardless of whether
it is a man or a woman, I believe that the influence is very
strong in that sense and it’s going to… I mean, there will be
a change in that girl when she decides to have a partner,
because if she is raised, I believe, with two women and, um,
that’s what she is taught, um, well, that is going to be… it’s
going to mark her life. [Police, female]
…I think so because they, by assuming that behavior, as long

as they don’t interfere with other people, that it’s among
themselves and that they are not… how can I put this… that
they don’t express it out in the open, where we know that
there are kids that will see that and will disagree, and they
could exchange [sic] the conduct of those children… because
they are going to say, “Oh, if they can be with men, why can’t
I?” I… that there should be privacy, as long as it’s a private
[matter] between them, I believe that they should be allowed.
[Police, male]
I think so. As long as the expressions aren’t public and they

don’t harm anybody. [Police, male]
Of course, if they want to screw around or get screwed, well
let them get screwed, that’s their problem, that’s their life,
their problem of being. If they are happy like that, let them
be happy like that. They don’t affect me by being happy,
because that guy is with that girl, no. That’s the way they
want to live their lives, they want to mess it up, perfect, whose
problem is that? Theirs. [Police, male]
…everyone has the freedom to live however they want; it’s a

free country, we are human beings, God gives us the… the
freedom, the free will to… to live however we want; who are
we to deprive somebody of living the way they want? Because
if I’m a woman [and] I like men and I want to live my life fully,
why do we have to deprive, mark or marginalize somebody
who is a man and wants to live his life fully with… with another
man? We can’t, because if you love, you love and regardless…
Maybe people who… who… who are homophobic and don’t
like and are stressed out by men, or two women who love each
other or something of the sort, well, causes us stress but we
shouldn’t judge because everyone is free to do whatever they
want, because God gave us freedom, God didn’t give us
licentiousness, he gave freedom, but whoever wants to do it,
well, let them do as they think best. [Police, female]
…when they have the parades, I think that they sort of go to

the extremes sometimes. You know. You may have your
preferences, it’s not so much as attracting attention. Maybe
they do it because there’s still rejection, rejection, still from
society because of their predilection. But going to the extremes
is what I believe perhaps even affects their being, then, finally
accepted by people. [Police, female]
Well, I think that they can as long as they don’t harm other
people or induce them to be like them. They can do whatever
they like. [Police, male]
Well, as long as it doesn’t affect… right… uh… that they respect,

right… well, yes. And that it isn’t something that is seen as
immoral also, that as well… You know, what is moral for you,
isn’t moral for somebody else, so that’s also relative. But, yes,
I think so. [Police, female]

Some of the people who were interviewed seem not to have restrictions on
the rights of gay people. Their statements are more explicit, less restrictive and no
stereotypes can be perceived as in the previous statements. These statements might
be less in number, but they are no less explicit:
I think so. Everyone has the right to manage their life as they
think best. [ADFAN, female]
Of course, of course they can. Um, for example, many of them

study, right, and they burn the midnight oil as people say, just
like anyone else, in order to study. I mean, if they study and
work hard, they have the same rights as any other person to
get a job related to what they studied and to have the same
salary as any other person and to be respected in the profession
that they decide to practice. [ADFAN, male]
Of course. Of course, because we are part of this world. We

contribute, either financially, we pay taxes, or emotionally in
helping [each other with] work, in our daily lives. [ADFAN,
male]
Of course. In fact, they have the freedom to vote, I believe

so, there are some laws that also allow it. And I have known
couples who can live a normal life. I believe so. [ADFAN,
female]
Yes. Yes, because they have the right to study, they have the
right to work, they have the right to get involved in the
community we live in, and those of us who aren’t like that also
need to learn and have the right to respect them and accept
them the way they are, the way they are. Then, what is the
difference if many of us are worse human beings than they
are? I think that they have to be stronger in standing up for
their rights. [ADFAN, female]
Yes, definitely. They are human beings and that’s where we

have to start, regardless of their sexual preference. They have
the right to live, to work, to be treated with dignity. They
must be treated like human beings. We cannot lose the
perspective that they are human beings who have their dignity,
who have certain values, who have morals, who have certain
needs like anyone else. [Justice, male]
Yes, like people. I believe that each person should choose

their lifestyle, whatever is best. If they want to be together
as a couple, if they want to build a home, a house, have a family
around them, well, I am inclined to [say] that they can. Because
love, fondness and affection, those are very separate things
and, as human beings, we have that capacity to love and to
share. [Justice, female]
Of course. Like everyone else, like me. Nobody can tell me

how I am entitled to live my life. Do I have to live a certain
way because I am a woman? No. I live my life the way I want
because I have that right, I have that freedom. And I don’t
have more or less freedom than a man. I don’t have more or
less freedom than a member of the GLBTT community either.
They have the right, of course they do, why not? [Justice,
female]
Of course. They have the right like any other human being.
They have… even if they are homosexual, they have hearts,
brains, you know, they think and feel and suffer like any other
human being. I believe that they must be in society and live
peacefully. They have to… or they have the right to be [here]
just as everyone else. You know, I believe that there shouldn’t
be a problem with that. [Police, male]
Of course. Well, the thing is that they are just as or more […]
than us, and if they want to make their lives and share them
with somebody of their same sex, well, I believe that we must
give them their space, their freedom; that if I want people to
respect me with my decisions, well, we have to respect the
decisions of others. [Police, female]

I think that everybody wants to live their life, well, fully and
to enjoy it. Uh, according to… um, what each person, well,
hopes from this life is to enjoy themselves and live well, I
mean, that if they believe that that is the best way they can
live… [Police, male]
I think so because that’s their personal life, nobody can

interfere, they are in a free, democratic country where each
person, well, does what they believe is legal and is fair and, as
people say (unintelligible) live well in whatever way as long as
it doesn’t affect others, doesn’t harm others and, well, they
are different people. [Police, male]
Well, everyone can live their life however they want. They
are people like me. Like anyone, like you. [I] mean, if I can
live my life the way I want to because I am heterosexual, why
can’t my friend who is a lesbian or gay live theirs? I mean,
everyone can live their life the way they want. [Police, male]
Of course. Because everyone is free to do what they want and

is entitled to live their life however they want. Because God
created us and, from there, we are going to produce and see
what we reap. But that’s it. They are as perfect as any other
human being. [Police, female]
Of course. I believe so because those are rights that they

have. Those are rights that, just because they like… have
sexual preferences that are different from ours, it doesn’t mean
that they have to be marginalized or that they can’t receive
the same benefits, the same respect. [Police, female]
The greatest challenge to dealing with the issues related to homosexuality and
lesbianism is the possibility of having sons or daughters who identify themselves as part
of the GLBT community. It is interesting that, although the perception of the people
who were interviewed showed a high adherence to religious and traditional values, they
also said that they would accept their sons and daughters.
Everything seems to demonstrate that, sure enough, the cultural value of the family
overcomes many obstacles. The people who were interviewed indicated that even
though it would be difficult for them to accept their gay sons or lesbian daughters, they
would do everything in their power because, after all, they are their sons and daughters.
I have two daughters; maybe it would shock me a bit, but I
have to work on that and respect it. [ADFAN, female]
Well, I would try to understand why he made those decisions

or why he has those preferences, but I’m not going to stop
loving him, nor am I going to leave him, nor am I going to
reject him, I would support him as much as I can. [ADFAN,
female]
I think that at the moment I could get very angry, I could

believe that that wasn’t what I taught them and, in time, I
think that I would end up accepting [it]. Although that doesn’t
mean that biblically I wouldn’t tell them, “Look, that’s not
right in the eyes of God, I love you, blah, blah…” but I don’t
think I would turn my back on them. [ADFAN, female]
Well, I am definitely still going to love them anyway. [ADFAN,

male]
It would be something difficult to accept, in the sense of the

Christian basis, but, on the other hand, I would understand
him and I would see the human being in that son or that
daughter. I would give him or her all of my love and all of my
support. [Justice, male]
I don’t have children, but it must be something difficult in

the sense that you know what they will have to face, but if I
had a son or a daughter, I wouldn’t have any problems. I have
nephews and [that’s] one of the things that I encourage in my
brothers and sisters. [Justice, female]
With everything I have seen today, I would hug him and tell
him that that’s his personal life, that I still love him and cherish
him. Something, like I always say, “Do whatever you believe
in your (unintelligible), take care of yourself, I love you, my
home will always be open.” [Justice, male]
Well, I think I would love him more than ever. I would support
him in everything he wanted to be, within his reality. I would
support anything that would make him happy, as long as, like
I said before, he doesn’t break certain established rules of
coexistence, social norms, rules of respect. [Justice, female]

…it’s very difficult, it’s very difficult, because he is your son,
he is your blood. However, if that happened, in that situation,
well, obviously I would have to accept him just as he is. [Police,
male]
Try to understand him, understand him and… and… and set

rules… rules, sometimes you have to set rules, when it’s
lesbianism or homosexuality, because sometimes it goes into…
into some things that you sometimes can’t accept, such as…
as getting home and… and seeing two men, uh, uh, you have
to set some rules, that’s what I think. [Police, male]
Well, if my son or my daughter ever told me that he or she is

homosexual, that’s a question that parents ask themselves a
lot, you might not believe it, but I think that I am prepared
to assume the responsibility that may fall on me, and in this
case it would be to support him. Then, I think that I wouldn’t
get upset in that sense, what I would like is to support him
and, as long as he is sure of what he’s doing, I am going to
support him. [Police, male]
It would be hard based on my principles, but I can’t forget

that he is my son or my daughter either; therefore, I would
try to give them and offer them everything in my power to
try to… desist from their conduct, but I wouldn’t reject them
either because, as I said before, he is my son or my daughter.
[Police, male]
Well, at least I don’t have that type of problem with regard to

[my] son, but I do have a nephew and we simply accept him.
[Police, male]
I truly don’t know how I would act, but I have to accept him
just as he is. Because God sent him to the world and if he
decides or she decides [to adopt] that attitude, there has to
be a purpose for it. He’s my son or my daughter, I am still
going to love them. [Police, female]
The tone of tolerance and acceptance changes when the possibility is for a son or
a daughter to indicate that he or she is transsexual. The possibility of a gender reversal
provokes the most passionate reactions shown by the people who were interviewed.
In comparison to the tone of acceptance and willingness to manage the situation of
gay sons or lesbian daughters, the subject of transgender people is expressed in rejection
and statements of conflict and pain.
The expressions of the people who were interviewed were mixed with pauses,
laughter and expressions of doubt regarding the possibility of having transsexual children.
Some of these situations can be observed in the following statements:
Very difficult, it would be very difficult, and it would be very

hard for me. I think it would cost me tears, um… psychiatric
treatments and many things. [ADFAN, female]
I think that does go against the nature of human beings. In

my opinion, sex is a practice, a need and something normal in
human beings that doesn’t necessarily have to be between
couples (of the same sex). Although it has the concept of
family, there’s a concept of procreation which is also from
nature; that you were born to raise a family and to have
children. Then, the conclusion, since it’s not accepted in a
couple, I know that it’s not accepted, I don’t know a lot about
[how it is] abroad, I think it’s accepted. [ADFAN, female]
Wow! Um… I would like for them to stay normal. If they are
[transsexual], then they are [transsexual] and that’s it, to get
an operation… They are going to have to bear the pressure
from society. And what would hurt me is that… at least I,
who am very well-known in my town, and my family is very
well-known, what I would be concerned about would be about
the people. [ADFAN, female]
It would be pretty hard for me to understand what that means,

that if he is a man he wants to be a woman and that if she is
a woman she wants to be a man. Because I could understand
that he or she is homosexual or heterosexual, that he or she
feels attracted to the opposite sex or to somebody of the same
sex, but I cannot imagine how somebody could think that he
or she belongs to the opposite sex. I really don’t understand
it. [Justice, male]

In that case I would give them advice. I would tell them that
that’s not going to be right in front of God. Because if God
made you that way it’s because He wanted you to be like that.
Well, I would give him advice, but if he decides […], I won’t
agree with him, because, as I told you before, I don’t see the
fact that if I’m born and I like women, why do I have to get
an operation to look like a man? No. [Justice, female]
In that case I would try to prevent it. I mean, [to try to] make
him realize… to try to make him understand that he is, I mean,
that he is wrong. I think he would be wrong. [Police, female]
I think that does go against the nature of human beings. In

my opinion, sex is a practice, a need and something normal in
human beings that doesn’t necessarily have to be between
couples (of the same sex). Although it has the concept of
family, there’s a concept of procreation which is also from
nature; that you were born to raise a family and to have
children. [ADFAN, female] [OJO REPETIDO]
Likewise, there are participants who, with the same passion, said that, despite the
great difficulties that this situation would cause them, they would accept their sons or
daughters if they told them that they were transsexual. Some people, with more or less
restrictions, warnings and/or concerns, expressed the need to accept those who are
inevitably their children. The discourse seems to suggest that, in fact, blood is thicker
than water…
I would take out a loan… I would take out a loan to help him
because that’s very expensive. That’s something that is
extremely expensive. [ADFAN, female]
…amputations, that sort of thing, I wouldn’t feel prepared to

accept it… from a son of mine, I wouldn’t feel prepared. But
if he already did it, and I haven’t noticed either, I am not going
to reject him, he is my son; until the world ceases to exist, he
will be my son. [ADFAN, female]
The truth is that… that… that I couldn’t tell you because you
might think one thing in the case of another person, but when
it’s yours, you know, things… the characters sort of change
and I don’t know what would happen at that time. As I told
you, I would continue loving them because they are my children,
and I love my children deeply. But I don’t know, at the time,
well, maybe I would be left speechless and wouldn’t even know
what to say. [ADFAN, female]
I think it would be the same thing, a bit harder. And what I

couldn’t bring myself to do, I would ask from God because
family cannot be broken up because we have different criteria.
[ADFAN, female]
Well, first, that it is difficult for me because you know that

historically you ga… just through history you know what you
gave birth to one day, right, and then they become, uh… But
I think that the bonds of love are… go above all things,
regardless of what they decide to do with their lives. [Justice,
female]
…well, in that case, I would wait for them to become adults,

to have their own jobs, their own decisions, I would take them
to their treatment, to a psychologist in case they need help.
And if that’s their decision, I, as a mother, I am always going
to support them. [Police, female]
A difficult question, a pretty difficult question. Wow, (lengthy

silence), what clothes are you going to wear today? I would
say the same thing, because they are doing the same thing,
that they dress this way, that they dress that way. You know,
you want to do it, well, fine, but in my house, there has to be
respect. You know, hide it a little, what I told you, feelings
are above everything, but… and that’s it, but it would shock
me, thank God my son wears size 11 shoes and he’s not going
to find size eleven women’s shoes. (ha, ha, ha, laughter) [Police,
male]
Many people who were interviewed said that they had friends, acquaintances
and coworkers who were openly gay or lesbian. Some said that even though the person
had not said it, they knew that they were homosexual. Some people mentioned that
they had relatives who were members of the GLBT community. These comments are
found among contradictory statements about not having any problems with the sexual
orientation of their friends, their religious values and their perceptions about the rights
of these people.

Yes, yes. I have had, not friends, but acquaintances, uh, they
have expressed their interest and you… well, it stays at that,
that’s as far as I go. Well, we can’t, um, we have to respect
their right to… in terms of the conduct. [ADFAN, female]
Yes, I have [one], [he/she] is a coworker. [ADFAN, female]
…I have had friends who have told me, “I’m gay, I like this or
I like that.” And I have a lot of tolerance, a lot of tolerance,
the same tolerance as for a heterosexual who could tell me
that he has a male friend, right, but a heterosexual male who
has a female friend, they have been open with me. Yes, well,
here, these people I know are very respectful, very respectful.
[ADFAN, female]
Very cool, very nice. He hasn’t said directly that he is [gay],

but because of his friends, because of the company he keeps,
well, you know. But he has never told me, “Look, I am [gay].”
But, well, you… His friends, whom he goes out with, whom
he mixes with, well, you already know that he is. [ADFAN,
female]
Friend… friend, uh, no, but my son’s uncle on his father’s side
is gay, and I have an ex-brother-in-law, and he’s no less my
son’s uncle, well, I don’t see… Yes, I have friends, my stylist
is homosexual. I have friends, they might not be very close
friends, but I do have contact with homosexual people. With
lesbians, my neighbor’s daughter also, she lives as a couple
with somebody else and her mom knows and accepts it as
well, and she’s not any less of a good lady, a good friend.
[ADFAN, female]
In my current personal life, no. But while I was in college, I

did have friends. [Justice, male]
Yes. I have acquaintances who are openly [homosexual].

[Justice, female]
Yes, many, several. From where I get my hair cut and all that,
that we hang out and we talk a lot and we’re always… talking…
[Justice, male]
No, I mean, excuse me, I don’t have male or female friends
who have openly told me that they are gay or that they are
lesbian. I do know people who are [homosexual], friends, but
not that they have told me personally. [Justice, male]
…since I was a kid I studied with… we could say that from the
first grade, I studied with male students, boys, who were gay
and they showed it since they were very little. So much so…
making gestures, dancing like female artists and imitating
everything that was feminine, and they really liked everything
having to do with the arts, in relation to music, dancing… As
of today, those three friends no longer exist, I studied with
them from first to twelfth grade, um, and they died. However,
in terms of work per se, I have worked with men and, especially
one, well, who is openly homosexual, he has said so, but he’s
the person whom everybody loves, whom everybody asks for,
a person who has shown that he is very smart and a person
who is very devoted to his duties and very responsible. He
has many attributes and we haven’t turned our backs on him
because of that, on the contrary, I say that he’s the one person
people ask for the most, [more] than those who aren’t [gay].
[Police, female]
Well, uh, I… have friends, uh, I don’t know if they are… well,
the way you are telling me they are, but you can’t listen to
rumors either nor is that person going to approach me to tell
me, “Look, I am this, this and that,” they aren’t… aren’t going
to tell me that, but I, anyway, well, they are friends and I
don’t… I accept them the way they are. As long as, well, there
is respect, well… [Police, male]
I have acquaintances… acquaintances, male friends… I do have

female friends, I have lesbian friends. Uh, like I told you, the
impact is less when they are lesbian, the opposite sex, different
than when the person is gay and maybe you think that they
are looking at you with another type of interest. At least, well,
with lesbians you know that (laughs) they don’t have any type
of interest in you, as a man. [Police, male]

However, it is important to point out that, although it was a smaller group, some
of the people who were interviewed said that they had very good friendships with
people who were gay or lesbian. These interviewees openly expressed their approval
of these persons and added very positive descriptions of these friendships. Some of
them indicated that they took trips together as a family, that they spent time together
at home and that they stayed over without greater difficulties or concerns.
Many comments were laden with fondness and emotion about the quality of the
relationships, including statements that they are friends on which you can always rely.
Some comments, such as the following, spoke of those friendships:
Well, that relationship is really nice, it’s a friendship we have

had since we were studying together at the regional college.
I mean, and we don’t see… and we are still as good friends as
always. I mean, I love him very much. I love my friend very
much and it was through him that I was able to understand
homosexuality. I was able to understand that they are human
beings just like any other. [ADFAN, female]
The thing is that it doesn’t create any conflict for me. In fact,
my best friend is a lesbian, you know, and she’s my best friend
(laughed) and she sleeps in my bed and lives… and comes to
my house and spends time with my husband. [ADFAN,
female]
Yes, I have several. And very good friends. Yes, very good
friends, I have excellent friends, excellent friends. Some of
my best friends, people who in hard times say, “I’ll help you,
I’m going over there, you can count on me.” Um, not all
friends are like that. [Justice, female]
I have many. I love them very much and they are good people.
And I would even add this, most gays are very nice, better
than many men. They have beautiful feelings, they are very
kind. I have friends and I get along very well with them and
I love them very much. [Justice, female]
…lesbian, no, but gay, yes, he lives with his partner, uh, he lives
near me, I adore him, I love him a lot because I have seen
that… that because he has that affinity, that situation, it doesn’t
make him a bad person, on the contrary, he’s more
humanitarian, nicer, he couldn’t be more special. [Police,
female]
I have gay friends and I was with some friends on a cruise
with my wife, with my wife, eight days, and we were [together]
for eight days, day and night, and there were never strange
looks, or any touching, a lot of respect, and I’m telling you
that we were together every morning, afternoon and evening,
together, we ate together, all of us together, and there was a
lot of respect really, and we had a […] time, and they were gay,
gay, I mean, they were gay, period. [Police, male]
The subject of citizenship gets complicated when we explore the perceptions of

the people who were interviewed about the rights of gay, lesbian and transsexual persons.
The comments related to the perception of whether this community is protected by
the national constitution range from complete ignorance to the most elaborate
explanations about the fact that the constitution protects all of us as citizens.
However, there were many comments that suggest that GLBT persons are subjects
of the law, but also mention some limits. Some comments mention the limit of marriage
and adoption as rights that they would not be interested in granting to gay, lesbian and
transgender people.
There were more sophisticated comments that point out that they are subjects of
the law just like any other citizen and that there is no need to establish legislation
protecting them specifically because they are already afforded the same protection
under the constitution. On the one hand, some of the people who were interviewed
said that the government is responsible for protecting this population and that they
would agree with the government if it adopted positions and policies regarding this
matter. On the other hand, some said that it is not the responsibility of the government
and that there is no need for it nor would they agree with establishing particular
legislation. All these positions can be seen in the following statements:
They are supposed to be protected [by the constitution], well,

to be provided services when they come to an agency, if they
come in a way that you can tell that they are gay or lesbian
they are supposed to… [ADFAN, female]
Of course, because they are human beings like any others. Of

course they are. [ADFAN, female]
Well, I think that every human being has the right to be

protected by the laws of the State and they are just another
person. [ADFAN, female]

As citizens… as citizens they have all of the rights that I have,
that every person has. [ADFAN, female]
I think so, the constitution talks about all human beings, I

think they are [protected] in terms of the basic policy, we
depend on the policy, we depend on the laws, that’s a different
thing, but they are protected by the constitution. [ADFAN,
female]
Well, I understand that in the Bill of Rights, where it says that

“the dignity of human beings is inviolable.” I believe that, yes,
that the Bill of Rights protects homosexual persons up to a
certain point. [Justice, female]
Gay, lesbian, transgender people, but all that type, that whole
community also has the same rights that I have. What happens
is that, certainly, society in general and, I believe, the
government itself have been inefficient safeguarding the rights
of those people. [Justice, male]
But I believe that every person in Puerto Rico is protected

by the constitution. [Justice, female]
Yes, they do have the same statutory and constitutional rights

that any human being has in our system of law and order. In
other words, that a person’s sexual preference cannot be the
characteristic that differentiates human beings of the State
and before the law. They have the same rights and they have
the right not to have their dignity as human beings violated,
just like everything else. [Justice, male]
Yes. The same way that any human being is covered. They
have the right to vote, they have the right to work, they can
do all the basic things that any human being can… they have
all the basic rights that any human who belongs to any sector
has. [Justice, female]
Yes, they are protected. The Constitution of the
Commonwealth protects all citizens. That’s why they cannot
be excluded from any service or from any protection. [Justice,
male]
Well, I think that, in general, like every human being, yes,

they are protected. The constitution protects, well, is all-
encompassing, just as it protects any other citizen. I mean,
I don’t think we should make a distinction of whether a person
is gay or straight or if they have three (3) eyes, so to speak,
they are human beings and they should be protected by the
constitution. And it should be interpreted in an all-
encompassing manner that includes all that range of people.
[Justice, male]
…[they] are supposed to, right, because when we say that we

cannot discriminate on the basis of sex, I believe that it falls…
that it covers that… but we live in a different reality, there are
many things that are written down which are nothing more
than ink and paper and it is a dead letter. [Police, female]
Well, the thing is that in Puerto Rico everybody has rights.

The constitution says that. In other words, that they are based
on the constitution; the constitution says: “Where your rights
end, mine begin.” Those are rights that exist in the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; they have a lot of rights, the
rights that everybody has. What more rights do they want?
They haven’t understood that yet; they have the rights of the
Constitution of Puerto Rico. [Police, male]
I believe, in my opinion, well, they are just another citizen,

just another citizen. [Police, female]
Um… the State is there to provide security, protection, to

assets and properties, it isn’t based on… on defending gays or
lesbian women; the fact of the constitution is men or women,
the subject of gays, lesbians, transsexuals is a current controversy,
but there shouldn’t be any type of difference. [Police, male]

But the thing is that the Constitution of the Commonwealth
says that all men are created in the likeness of God, that
everybody has rights, that your sexual preference has nothing
to do with your way of thinking, with your job. There doesn’t
have to be a word [that says that] if you are a lesbian, you are
protected, if you are not a lesbian, you are not protected. No.
There doesn’t have to be a word, it’s defined as men or women,
period… not… not, oh, let’s protect [him] because he’s queer.
How could somebody think, “No… no, we aren’t going to
protect her because she’s a lesbian.” No… we can’t think like
that, we have to open up our minds a bit… We have to save
them anyway and we have to help them; I try, but if they jump
in, we can’t do anything else. (Ha, ha, ha, laughter) [Police,
male]
Well, we all have rights here, you know, what happens is that,
well… within the law as such, the limits, well, what a relationship
as a couple is, well, that’s where it doesn’t establish what […]
are… it doesn’t include homosexual relationships. Because
there are rights for men, rights for women, there isn’t a right
that says, you know, “I am covering you as the homosexual
that you are.” You know, they simply have the same rights as
any other human being. [Police, male]
I think so, I think so, the thing is that sometimes, perhaps in

a few cases, they are being discriminated against, but the thing
is that maybe they are looking for certain rights that go
beyond… [that are] exclusive for that community and, by doing
that, they are discriminating against the rest of the community.
Uh, that’s where I believe that when any group wants some
specific privileges, then, the group goes on to be discriminated
against within the community; it’s that perhaps they find the
limitations in terms of how the constitution is […] and how
society is really constituted, but, well, the thing is that those
are changes that are a bit shocking, really. [Police, female]
Well, I think so because the constitution is for everyone…

uh… including… Because I believe that being lesbian or gay
is a type of behavior as such, it isn’t… I don’t believe that they
are being excluded as such because we have to see them as
people as such. And the constitution is for everyone. [Police,
female]
Well, they have a certain protection as the citizens that they
are. Um, however, they don’t have other, right?, privileges, if
we could call them that, such as marriage, approving their
cohabitation. There are certain things that they don’t [have].
Yes, as citizens, they have the same rights as any other citizen.
[Police, female]
Yes, as long as they don’t violate the social order in the sense
that they don’t… that the rules of society are respected.
Because all of us must live in a social order, both criminals and
those who aren’t criminals have to follow some rules. If a
person violates them, well, they are subject to a… to a criminal
proceeding. [Justice, female]
That thing about the way they wish is very broad. Because
you can’t see life the way you want to, because some people
would like to live their lives killing others, using drugs, raping
women, killing children, looking for easy money. Living entails
certain responsibilities, it entails duties. We live in community,
we have certain responsibilities to our neighbors. All that is
applicable. But if it’s in terms of how they are going to carry
out their sexual lives privately, or be together on the street,
well, they are fully entitled [to do it]. [Justice, male]
• Public Policies at the Agencies

Few people indicated that there was a clear public policy at their agencies regarding
non-discrimination against people from the GLBT community. Some people indicated
that they did not know if those policies existed and others that they were not necessary
because the existing policies covered all people. There does not seem to be a consensus
among the people who were interviewed and who participated in the focus groups in
relation to whether the policies should be more explicit or whether the government
should assume a greater responsibility in the protection of the rights and citizenship
of the people from the GLBT community.
Other people explained that both the existing policies and the constitution serve
to protect all persons and that there would be no need to legislate or establish policies
for particular groups. Some people said they agreed that the State should assume a
greater responsibility in the development of public policies and that their agency in
particular should have more inclusive policies.
The following statements echo all of the positions presented by different interviewees
or participants in the focus groups:

…be something (referring to policies at the agency)… there
should, there should be something because this population is
increasing. It’s increasing and mainly in the area of ADFAN
that we have to provide certain services in which we cannot
discriminate. I mean, for example, at the level of the adults
program, I have to provide certain services to some people
with… for example, I mean, housekeeping service, foster home
service, I cannot discriminate against the person. [ADFAN,
female]
Of course, of course there should. Well, this way it might

prevent [situations in which] people come to receive the
services and a coworker dares make some type of comment
to them, they are going to think twice [before they do it].
Because maybe if they do it now and there isn’t anything in
writing, that person will be left… they won’t have anything to
support them so that they can claim their rights. Within the
agency itself, maybe among employees of different levels
themselves, it would also prevent derogatory comments or
jokes or many other things that might happen in my office as
such, but that we do hear sometimes about other offices.
[ADFAN, male]
Yes, they should have it, they should make some laws to prevent
discrimination. To prevent falling into that [behavior] of
discriminating against them and accepting a population that
can be very useful in many areas, including, as I told you, the
area of adoptions. A homosexual couple could have their
children and they could be great parents. [ADFAN, female]
Here, it isn’t established directly, or administrative policies or

anything, but it isn’t clarified either. I mean, no, no…. not in
training that we have taken about how to manage a case of
this type so as to not go into the prejudice… there’s no type
of policy, nothing is established, that’s like a taboo that…
[ADFAN, female]
It depends on what areas it’s going to protect [them]. [ADFAN,

female]
No, they are protected in the aspect as citizens, as every citizen
in the general aspect, but specifically, as a community, I don’t
think that they have any type of privilege. [ADFAN, female]
Well, we have (laughed) that you cannot discriminate on the

basis of this, of that, ta… ta, but it doesn’t say, “Do not
discriminate on the basis of being gay or lesbian.” [ADFAN,
female]
I don’t think there is [one], well, the thing is that they are
men or women and that they are protected by the constitution
and I don’t think that they are a recognized group. [ADFAN,
female]
We could expand [and] add it, make it very clear and in black
and white, that people should not discriminate on the basis
of that, of sexual preference. It should be very clearly
established in terms of discrimination. It has been made very
clear that you cannot discriminate against a person for all the
(other) things that the law says, but whether we have to stress
it, well, yes. [Justice, female]
I think so. I see that these people have the same rights as
everyone else, you know, they should have the same
opportunities as everyone else. In fact, the perception that
exists, uh, when you ask, when people discuss these topics
that aren’t discussed very frequently, the perception that exists
is that these people, as employees, the vast majority are very…
are very efficient and very responsible. [Justice, male]
I think so, that the department and all the agencies should
have a policy protecting homosexuals because they are human
beings. Just for being human beings and just because it’s in
our constitution, that the dignity of human beings is inviolable,
it doesn’t give any human being the right to crush, denigrate
or reject a person on the basis of their sex; rather, what we
are going to see is how that person performs in his or her work
environment. [Justice, female]

I don’t see the difference, I don’t see why we have to make
special laws. [ADFAN, female]
Yes, they should have it, protect it [because] there are always
a couple of people who like to make fun, um, to let them
perform their duties, because they might be lesbian or gay and
they might perform better than the… than the other people
who are not like them. Yes, I think that they have to protect
them. [Police, female]
Well, among us, there is equal treatment for everybody. Uh,

we are always given orientation about that matter, uh, because
we are an agency that oftentimes provides first aid to these
affected people and, because of that, we can’t go into those
details, but, well, that that person is always protected. [Police,
male]
I would like it if, well, there was something that would protect
them as I told you, so that they would feel safer and more at
ease and so they could live however they want to live. [Police,
male]
Well, I think that there shouldn’t be one because there’s no

type of discrimination against those people here. I mean, if
there was any… any discrimination against that type of
population, well, they should have it, but at least from what
I have seen, and there are quite a few people here, quite a few
people, um, I don’t think they are being discriminated against,
I don’t think there should be one here, at least in the police.
[Police, female]
V
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The results of this study evidence, on the one hand, the high perception of social
exclusion and discrimination that the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transsexual people in
Puerto Rico point out; and, on the other, the levels of prejudice and the amount of
myths held by a sector of the people who work at government agencies in general and,
in particular, at the Department of the Family, the Police Department and the Department
of Justice. The emphasis, the examples and the magnitude of the awareness of the
exclusion might vary, but the dynamics of social exclusion are acknowledged and at
times justified or criticized.
Social exclusion cannot be understood except in the context of its opposite: the
notion of inclusion in society. Social inclusion “means to include the population as a
whole in the system of social institutions, with regard to both the access to its benefits
and the dependence on the individual way of life with regard to same” (Lo Vuolo et al.,
2004, pg. 19). Therefore, exclusion refers to all the conditions that allow, facilitate or
promote the fact that certain members of society are isolated, rejected or simply denied
the possibility of accessing the benefits of society.
Then, what we are talking about is that, with more or less awareness, the personnel
of the government agencies who participated in this study manifest attitudes, ideas
and behaviors that exclude people from their access to full citizenship solely on the
basis of their sexual orientation.
“It is assumed that people are discriminated against because

they are already different, when, in fact… it is the other way
around: difference and the salience of different identities are
produced by discrimination, a process that establishes the
superiority or the typicality or the universality of some in
terms of the inferiority or atypicality or particularity of others.”
(Scott, 1992; pg. 14)

It is exclusion which makes gay, lesbian, bisexual and transsexual people different.
They are not excluded because they are considered different… the difference is made
because they are excluded and marginalized from society. Using an extraordinary
amount of myths and stereotypes as a basis, people in society classify, separate and
differentiate this population. References to promiscuity, illness, lack of control, gender
reversal and pedophilia clearly appear in the discourse of the interviewees.
a. The Conditional Right
The current rule of law makes it difficult to find people who will openly and brutally
deny the rights of the members of the GLBT community. In fact, most of the
interviewees agree that this population is protected by the Constitution of Puerto
Rico, that they have rights and that there should be clear policies about this matter.
However, this admission of their rights is not forceful. Upon acknowledging the legal
status of the people from the GLBT community, they immediately make the
corresponding clarifications: “as long as they do not overdo it”… “the same rights as
other citizens”… “it depends on the rights they are requesting”… “as long as they respect
social norms.” It would be worthwhile to explore whether these conditional rights
would be explained in the same manner if we were talking about a different social
sector. The notion of exclusion is likewise perceived when people from the GLBT
community are associated or compared to other socially stigmatized sectors: “services
are provided to them just as to everyone else… prostitutes, addicts…”, “crime of passion”…
It is interesting to note the level of tolerance shown by many of the people who
were interviewed and who participated in the focus groups for the jokes and mockery
related to the GLBT population. Even in the statements of many of the interviewees,
we could observe a nervous laugh when referring to the subject and to their memories
when they speak about gay, lesbian or transsexual people. The presence of gays, lesbians
and transsexuals becomes a spectacle either in the waiting area of a division of the
Department of the Family, in a situation with the police or in court. The references
made to the visits of lesbian women “who looked like men” to the offices of the
Department of the Family and of “famous transvestites” to the courts are eloquent in
the statements of some of the people who were interviewed.
Oftentimes tolerance is conditional on “as long as [he/she] respects me…”, “as long
as [he/she] doesn’t make advances, I have no problem…” once again demonstrating
myths and stereotypes regarding the fact that gay men do not respect others, make
advances to all men and have no restraints regarding their sexuality. Stereotypes
considered as positive are also manifested when they point out that gays and lesbians
are very hardworking, excellent professionals, great friends whom you can trust. These
comments are mixed with personal experiences in the work and family environments.
Most of the interviewees know people from the GLBT community, others have
friends or coworkers, and some said that they had relatives. The examples of family
members range from brothers to uncles and nephews: “I don’t have that problem, but
in my family… I have a nephew…”, although they indicate that, in fact, they and their
families accept “that problem” and that they do not discriminate against them. With
pain, potential suffering or disagreement, most people said that if they had a gay son
or a lesbian daughter, they would accept them… after all “they are their children.”
b. Social Policies
Most of the people in the interviews and focus groups indicated that, although
there are no clear policies at their agencies regarding the access and services for the
GLBT community, there should be. They pointed out that at times situations seem
to be ambiguous; the applicability of Public Law No. 54, the right to custody, adoptions,
marriage between people of the same sex… have all been matters that have been
discussed at the agencies with contradictory results. They believe that well-defined
policies should be established, although some people make those policies conditional.
Other people believe that there is no need to establish particular policies because they
understand that GLBT persons, like any other citizen, have the same rights and
responsibilities before the law. Some insisted that establishing particular policies could
be considered discrimination. “The constitution protects all of us”… from this perspective
many people at the agencies believe that within the context of the law, the GLBT
community is already protected and does not need greater or particular protections.
c. Gender Transgression as a Basis for Exclusion
It is evident from the comments made by the people who were interviewed that
the adherence to the traditional canons of the social representation of gender is an
important requirement for social inclusion in Puerto Rico. The stereotypes that
indicate that all gay men look like women and that all lesbians look like men are the
basis of many of the comments that were made by the interviewees. In fact, most of
the examples of open discrimination that the people identified were related precisely
to the perception of gender reversal: two lesbians, one of whom “looks like a man;” a
transsexual, “they call a man in court and a woman stands up;” “you can identify gays
and lesbians by the way they dress, the way they walk, the way they talk;” “people with
mannerisms;” “people who are like this… like this… like that…”

It is not surprising that a society such as ours, which has traditionally been so rigid
in the management of sexual roles and which demands consistency, has great difficulties
with everything that seems to trangress gender, either because they see it as a “hormonal
problem” or “a genetic problem”…
“We have witnessed how gender is one of the most important

regulating categories in our society. Through gender, control
has been wielded over people in historical moments that
precede our times using the rule of biological anatomy as a
starting point to make us men or women.” (Rodríguez &
Toro-Alfonso, 2002, pg. 64).
Gender issues seem to be the final topic for tolerance. Most of the people who
were interviewed or who participated in the focus groups expressed difficulties in the
dealing with of transgender people, including gay “effeminate” men or women who
“look like men.” Evidently related to the myths and stereotypes, laughter, looks, jokes
and comments were observed when faced with people who break the traditional schema
of gender. People in the Police Department believe that officers should “show a certain
degree of masculinity,” “an image of respect.” Therefore, people who project an
“effeminate” image would not be able to do so. Some members of the police forces
indicated that previously “they were not even admitted to the academy” and that “those
who pass the academy are assigned desk jobs.”
The comments about how to identify gays or lesbians are also related to the gender
stereotype. The people who were interviewed indicated that they recognize them
precisely because they exhibit gender characteristics that are blurred or because a clear
reversal of their gender can be observed.
The fact that a man—who socially has the potential for power and dominant
masculinity—socially represents himself with a feminine image has traditionally provoked
laughter and jokes. Television is full of almost pathetic images of poor homosexual
men who appear fragile and effeminate with hysterical pretensions. Society finds it
funny that a man is capable of adopting this posture… feminine traits, which seem to
be so devalued and rejected in our society. The idea of gender also assigns gay men
positive characteristics: they are good friends, they have good taste, they can be counted
on, they know how to listen, they dress very well… all these characteristics are socially
considered feminine. The image of transgender people can also be observed along
these lines. At times, it is perceived as the exaggeration of feminine traits; all the
confusion provoked by the image of Samantha—hyper-woman, seductive, provocative
and, above all, blunt—is transferred to the idea of transsexuality.
On the other hand, the image of lesbians is the complete opposite. Lesbians are
socially represented as ambitious people; women who do not recognize their social
position and dare pretend masculinity, a privilege that is only allowed to biological
males. Lesbians are not funny… they instill fear. It is not the first time that we hear
comments and warnings about the—almost masculine—brutality of lesbians. They are
presented as passionate, as falling in love with all women and as making big scenes of
jealousy and aggression.
It is within this perception that our society conceives gay, lesbian and transgender
people in Puerto Rico. Tolerance is shown to the extent that these people conform
to the rules of gender. Masculine gay men who dress and behave as men, who represent
traditional masculinity and who, above all, do not speak openly about their homoerotic
desires do not find it hard to be silently accepted by society. Although people insist
that they can always be identified, it is always more difficult to identify those who do
not seem to be different. Suspicion does not disturb anyone. Men and women who
arouse suspicion and who are immersed in silence and mystery are clearly tolerated.
Many of the people who were interviewed indicated that, although they have not told
them, they know that some of their friends are gay or lesbian. Nobody talks about it,
nobody mentions it, but they suspect. There seems to be no major problems with
these people.
At the same time, people said that they recognize the legal status of the people
from the GLBT community. However, as we have already mentioned, they limit their
rights. It seems that people put an end to tolerance and acceptance when sectors of
this community begin demanding rights to which the general community believes they
are not entitled. “They have rights… but it depends on what rights they want.” They
react in the same way in view of what they consider to be exaggerated displays in public
demonstrations and in the annual gay parades. Once again, this raises the question of
whether what society wants is for gay, lesbian and transgender people to behave, to
abstain from demanding rights and from “making too much noise.” It is the invitation
to silence and secrecy.
“…a secret can mean many things: it is that which is kept

quiet, that about which we do not speak, that about which
we speak in hushed tones or behind other people’s backs,
that about which we should not speak, that about which we
cannot speak… what we wish to emphasize here is that secrets

establish specific social bonds among those who share it and
respect from those who do not, but who may sense it or who
may at some point recognize it. Secrets thus give rise to a
particular type of interaction and conflict.” (Pecheny, 2005,
pg. 134-135.)
This secret does not disturb anybody. This is why the demands of political
movements dealing with the rights of the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender
community produce a recognized impact in society. Some sectors of these communities
refuse to stay secret and demand the right to full citizenship. This citizenship would
make them subjects of the law beyond what society is willing to grant them.
This is the challenge that the new millennium seems to pose. The current struggles
in legislative circles demanding inclusion are nothing more than the inescapable
recognition that all people are entitled to citizenship regardless of color, social class,
physical or mental disability, political beliefs or sexual orientation.
d. Strategic Recommendations
Based on the results of this study and the review of the literature, we believe that
the following recommendations are pertinent for the Puerto Rico Civil Rights
Commission:
1. Provide training to government agency personnel regarding human rights,
citizenship, sexual orientation and gender.
2. Recommend to the senior management of government agencies in Puerto Rico
the regular inclusion of the topic of human rights and sexual orientation in all
personnel training.
3. Review all applicable legislation—at the national and federal level—to examine
the responsibilities of the state to guarantee the free access to services and to
full citizenship of the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) community
in Puerto Rico.
4. Prepare, develop and recommend public policies to the state in order to
strengthen non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and underline
the constitutional guarantees of the rights afforded to the people from the gay,
lesbian, bisexual and transgender community.
5. Explore, examine and recommend a review of legislation that is inclusive and
that does not strengthen the perceptions of the social exclusion of the GLBT
sector.
6. Make recommendations to the legislature about relevant legislation to take
advantage of the current revision of codes in Puerto Rico. Support and strengthen
the inclusion of common-law couples and other legislation that includes the
GLBT sector.
7. Establish relationships with representatives from the different sectors that
group gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people in Puerto Rico to develop
coalitions that will influence the development of legislation that includes the
GLBT sector with equal rights.
8. Develop and promote a formal complaints program at the Civil Rights
Commission so that people from the GLBT community will have a venue to
file cases of discrimination and marginalization by government agencies in
Puerto Rico.
9. Develop and promote an effective legal support program that will enable
following-up on and appealing to the corresponding courts cases of evident and
clear discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in a cost-effective way
by establishing collaboration with existing programs such as the legal clinic for
discrimination cases of the University of Puerto Rico School of Law.
10. Expand this study in the future to include other government agencies and
follow-up on the ones that have already been studied, in order to examine the
change in attitudes and the permanent development of the citizenship space
for the GLBT sector.
11. Create and develop a commission (or a “division” within the Civil Rights
Commission) that will oversee the wellbeing of the members of this community.
An entity that is devoted to safeguarding non-discrimination against gay, lesbian,
bisexual and transsexual people should be developed. This entity should also
be aimed at educating victims of discrimination so that they will be aware of
their rights and understand that they do not deserve to be mistreated for any
reason and should therefore report any violent or abusive act against them, even
if these acts are committed by their own relatives and/or acquaintances.
12. Develop strategies and campaigns aimed at educating and dispelling myths
regarding homosexuality and lesbianism. One of the main problems faced by
gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people is the little objective information

available about the subject. Therefore, we need to compile and disclose
information about this matter, not to try to change or modify such conducts,
but to disclose more information that will help dispel fears and prejudices.
13. Launch educational campaigns in the mass media, schools, workplaces and
government agencies, among other entities, to create awareness about the
damage and disastrous chain effects caused by discrimination.
REFERENCES
Aponte, N. (2004). El Trabajo Social con la comunidad gay, lesbiana, bisexual, transgénero y
transexual: Conocimiento y actitudes de los/as trabajadores Sociales del Departamento
de Educación, la Administración de Familias y Niños y la Administración de Servicios
de Salud Mental y Contra la Adicción (ASSMCA), acerca de la identidad sexual,
intervención profesional y derechos de la comunidad GLBTT. Master’s Thesis.
Graduate School of Social Work. San Juan, PR: University of Puerto Rico.
Ardila, R. (1998). Homosexualidad y psicología, Mexico, DF, Manual Moderno.
Benítez, J. (1995). La intolerancia y la cultura política puertorriqueña. Revista de

Administración Pública, 2, 22-31.
Burgos, O. (2005). Manifestaciones de homofobia en decisiones del Tribunal Supremo de Puerto

Rico. San Juan, Puerto Rico: Unpublished document.
Carballo-Diéguez, A. (1998). The challenge of staying HIV-negative for Latin American

immigrants. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services, 8, 61- 82.
Carleton, F. (1999). Contested identity: The law’s construction of gay and lesbian
subjects. In L. Pardie & T. Luchetta (Eds.), The construction of attitudes toward
lesbian and gay men (pg. 19-37). New York, NY: The Harworth Press.
Castañeda, M. (2000). La experiencia homosexual: Para comprender la homosexualidad desde

dentro y desde fuera. Mexico, DF, Paidós.
Comisión de Derechos Civiles (1973a) Informes de la Comisión de Derechos Civiles del Estado
Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico, Vol. 1. Oxford, NH: Equity Publishing Corporation.
Comisión de Derechos Civiles (1973b). Informes de la Comisión de Derechos Civiles del

Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico, Vol. 2. Oxford, NH: Equity Publishing
Corporation.
Covas, W. (2005, April). Dieciocho arrestado por exposiciones deshonestas. El Nuevo

Día, April 15, pg. 43. San Juan, Puerto Rico.
Díaz, R.; Ayala, G., Bein, E., Henne, J. & Marín, B. (2001). The impact of homophobia,
poverty and racism on the mental health of gay and bisexual Latino men:
Findings from 3 US cities. American Journal of Public Health, 91, 927-932.

Fone, B. (2000). Homophobia: A history. New York, NY: Picador USA.
Greif, G.L., & McClelland, D.L. (2003). Being heard on sexual orientation: An analysis
of testimonies at public hearings on anti-discrimination bill. Journal of Human
Behavior on a Social Environment, 8, 15-27.
Hamer, D. & Capland, D. (1994). The science of desire: The search for the gay gene and the
biology of the brain. New York, NY, Simon & Schuster.
Herek, G.M. (2000). The psychology of sexual prejudice. Current Directions on Psychological
Sciences, 9, 19-22.
Herek, G.M. (1988) An epidemic of stigma: Public reactions to AIDS. American

Psychologist, 43, 886-891.
Hirschfeld, M. (1935) Sex in the human relationship. London, England: John Lane.
Hunter, N.D. (2004). Sexual orientation and the paradox of heightened scrutiny.
Michigan Law Review, 102, 1528-1554.
International Lesbian and Gay Association (2001). LGBT Human Rights Annual Report.
1998-2000. Barcelona, Spain: Author.
Irizarry, L. (2003). En el Capitolio el recambio a la ley de violencia doméstica. Primera Hora.

Downloaded on June 23, 2003, from http://www.adendi.com.
Jablow, P.M. (2000). Victims of abuse and discrimination: Protecting battered

homosexuals under domestic violence legislation. Hofstra Law Review, 28, 1095-
1145.
King, B.R. (2001). Ranking of stigmatization toward lesbians and their children and
the influence of perceptions of controllability of homosexuality. Journal of
Homosexuality, 41, 77-97.
Kinsey, A., Pomeron, W., & Martin, C. (1948). Sexual behavior in the human male.
Philadelphia, PA: Saunders.
Kinsey, A., Pomeron, W., & Martin, C. (1953). Sexual behavior in the human female.
Philadelphia, PA: Saunders.
Krieglstein, M. (2003). Heterosexism and social work: An ethical issue. Journal of

Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 8, 75-91.
Kornblit, A.L., Pecheny, M., & Vujosevich, J. (1998). Gays y lesbianas: Formación de la
identidad y derechos humanos. Buenos Aires, Argentina, La Colmena.
Laumann, E., Gagnon, J., Michael R., & Michaels, S. (1994). The social organization of
sexuality: Sexual practices in the United States. Chicago, IL: Chicago University
Press.
Lo Vuolo, R., Barreto, A., Gargarlla, R., Offe, C., Ovejero, L., Pautáis, L., & Van Parijs,
P. (2004). Contra la exclusión: La propuesta del ingreso ciudadano. Buenos Aires,
Argentina: Miño y Dávila Editores.
Lozada, A. (1996). La patografía. Mexico, D.F., Mexico: Editorial Planeta Mexicana,

S.A.
Luchetta, T. (1999). Relationships between homophobia, HIV/AIDS stigma and

HIV/AIDS knowledge. In L. Pardie y T. Luchetta (Eds.), The construction of
attitudes toward lesbians and gay men (pg. 1-18). New York, NY: The Haworth
Press.
Master, W., & Johnson, V. (1966). Human sexual response. Boston, Mass.: Little, Brown.
Master, W., & Johnson, V. (1970). Human sexual inadequacy. Boston, Mass.: Little,
Brown.
Mays, V. & Cochran, S. (2001). Mental health correlates of perceived discrimination

among lesbian, gay and bisexual adults in the United States. American Journal
of Public Health, 91, 1869-1876.
Mercado Martínez, M. (2000). Desarrollo de la orientación sexual en un grupo de adolescentes

heterosexuales y homosexuales de Puerto Rico. Doctoral Dissertation. Carlos Albizu
University.
Montero, M. (2005, May). Baños. Revista Domingo, El Nuevo Día, pg. 5. May 1st.
San Juan, Puerto Rico
Mucciaroni, G. & Killian, M.L. (2004). Immutability, science and legislative debate
over gay, lesbian and bisexual rights. Journal of Homosexuality, 47, 53-77.
Myers, K.A., Forest, K.B., & Miller, S.L. (2004). Officer friendly and the tough cop:
Gays and lesbians navigate homophobia and policing. Journal of Homosexuality,
47, 17-37.
Parker, R.G., & Gagnon, J.H. (1995). Conceiving sexuality: Approaches to sex research in a
postmodern world. New York, N.Y: Routledge.
Pecheny, M. (2005). Identidades discretas. In L. Arfuch (Comp.), Identidades, sujetos y

subjetividades. (pg. 131-154). Buenos Aires, Argentina. Prometeo Libros.
Pharr, S. (1997). Homophobia: A weapon of sexism. Berkeley, CA, Chardon Press.
Ramírez, R., García Toro, V., & Solano-Castillo, L. (2004). Men coming out in Puerto
Rico. Caribbean Studies, 31, 37-58.

Ramos Otero, M. (1992). Cuentos de buena tinta. San Juan, PR: Instituto de Cultura
Puertorriqueña.
Ríos-Avila, R. (2002). La raza cósmica: Del sujeto en Puerto Rico. San Juan, PR: Ediciones
Callejón.
Rodríguez-Madera, S. & Toro-Alfonso, J. (2003). La comunidad de la cual no hablamos:

Vulnerabilidad social, conductas de riesgo y VIH/SIDA en la comunidad
transgénero en Puerto Rico. Revista Puertorriqueña de Psicología, 14, 7-40.
Rodríguez-Madera, S., & Toro-Alfonso, J. (2002). Ser o no ser: La transgresión del

género como objeto de estudio de la psicología. Avances en Psicología Clínica
Latinoamericana, 20, 63-78.
Ronner, A.D. (2005). Homophobia and the law. Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Santos-Febres, M. (2000). Sirena Selena vestida de pena. Barcelona, Spain: Mondadori.
Scott, J. (1992). Multiculturalism and the politics of identity. October, 61, 8-20.
Snively, C.A., Kreuger, L., Stretch, J.J., Wilson-Watt, J. & Chadha, J. (2004). Understanding
homophobia: Preparing for practice realities in urban and rural setting. Journal
of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 17, 59-81.
Sosa Pascual, O. (2005, April). Conducta guiada por preferencia. El Nuevo Día, April
16, pg. 14. San Juan, Puerto Rico.
Soto, P. J. (2005, mayo). ‘Daño innecesario’ a arrestados en baños. Cartas, El Nuevo

Día, May 7, pg. 102. San Juan, Puerto Rico.
Stychin, C.F. (2004). Same-sex sexualities and the globalization of human rights
discourse. McGill Law Journal, 49, 951-968.
Toro-Alfonso, J. & Rodríguez-Madera, S. (2004). Domestic violence in Puerto Rican

gay male couples: Prevalence, intergenerational violence, addictive behaviors
and conflict resolution skills. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 639-654.
Ugarte, O. (1999). Derechos sexuales y sociedad: Construyendo espacios para la

diversidad en América Latina, in M. León (Ed.) Derechos sexuales y reproductivos:
Avances constitucionales y perspectivas en Ecuador (pg. 69-90). Quito, Ecuador,
Fundación Ecuatoriana de Acción y Educación para la Promoción de la Salud.
Uldall, K.K. & Palmer, N.B. (2004). Sexual minorities and mental health: The need
for a public health response. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Psychotherapy, 8, 11-24.
Varo, C. (1987). Rosa Mystica. Barcelona, Spain: Editorial Seix Barral.
416 Ponce de León Avenue, Suite 901, Hato Rey, Puerto Rico
PO Box 192338, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00919•2338
Telephone: 787•764•8686 / 1•800•981•4144
TTY: 787•765•9360 / 1•800•981•9366
www.cdc.gobierno.pr

José Toro-Alfonso is a clinical psychologist and professor at the Psychology
Department of the University of Puerto Rico. He has a master’s degree
in education from the Catholic University in addition to a master’s degree
in family psychology and a PhD in clinical psychology from the Carlos
Albizu University. He teaches undergraduate and postgraduate courses
about sexuality, the social construction of homosexuality, family therapy and
ethics in HIV research, among others. He supervises the clinical practice of
graduate psychology students at the University Center for Psychological Services and Research (CUSEP, Spanish
acronym), of which he was the associate director from 1998 to 2005. In 2007, he was appointed honorary
professor of the National University of San Marcos in Lima, Peru. He is also a visiting professor at the Del Valle
University of Guatemala.
He was the executive director of the Puerto Rico AIDS Foundation for 15 years. In 2002, he became the president
of the Puerto Rico Psychological Association and he is a member of the American Psychological Association.
He was the secretary general of the Interamerican Society of Psychology (SIP, Spanish acronym) from 2001 to
2007 and a consultant for various international organizations. He has published over 50 articles about sexuality,
HIV/AIDS, domestic violence in same sex couples, social support networks for people with HIV/AIDS; books and
chapters.

Por La Vía de La Exclusión: Homofobia y Ciudadania en Puerto Rico Versión Ingles PDF

Cargado por

Información del documento

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Por La Vía de La Exclusión: Homofobia y Ciudadania en Puerto Rico Versión Ingles PDF

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

WAY OFBY

Dr. Palmira N. Ríos González Luz Mairym López Rodríguez

Mr. René Pinto Lugo, Esq. Julio Rafael Alejandro Andino

Dr. Nelson I. Colón Tarrats Marve Liz Osorio Figueroa

Lorenzo Villalba Rolón Angélica Canini Torres

Noelani Avilés Deliz

María Quiñónez Rivera

Elizabeth Méndez Mantilla

Koren Ramos Son

William Morales Rosa

Rosalynn Gutiérrez Rosario

2 • Civil Rights Commission

4 • Civil Rights Commission

When the Puerto Rico para Tod@s organization asked the

Palmira N. Ríos-González, PhD

6 • Civil Rights Commission

PorBy Way of Exclusion • 7

José Toro-Alfonso, PhD

Luis Nieves-Rosa, PhD

María Gema Zuluaga, BA

8 • Civil Rights Commission

To every person who has died in the last twenty-five years

To every teenager, male and female,

10 • Civil Rights Commission

a. The Desire that Dares Not Speak its Name

12 • Civil Rights Commission

b. Research on Homosexualities in Puerto Rico1

As of 1980, we can find research in Puerto Rico related to the subject of

14 • Civil Rights Commission

Some authors have defined homophobia as an irrational negative attitude toward

d. The Institutionalization of Social Difference and Exclusion

Social institutions in Puerto Rico show a tremendous resistance to social changes

16 • Civil Rights Commission

18 • Civil Rights Commission

For this research, we developed a mixed methodology research model in order to

• To interview employees of government agencies

20 • Civil Rights Commission

- Confidentiality and anonymity

Table 1 • Gender with which participants identified themselves

22 • Civil Rights Commission

Table 2 • Age of participants

AGE FREQUENCY PERCENT

Gay Lesbian Bisexual

The sample of participants seems to be an educated sample. An important number

LEVEL OF EDUCATION FREQUENCY PERCENT

Table 4 • National origin of participants

NATIONALITY FREQUENCY PERCENT

Table 5 • Participants who reported to be employed full-time

EMPLOYED FULL-TIME FREQUENCY PERCENT

24 • Civil Rights Commission

• Participants in the Focused Interviews: Employees of the Participating Agencies

AGENCY ALL INTERVIEW FOCUS GROUP

VARIABLE TOTAL AGENCY

26 • Civil Rights Commission

Instruments used to compile the information for the research

• Informed Consent Form

28 • Civil Rights Commission

• Guide for the Focus Group

30 • Civil Rights Commission

a. Quantitative Phase: GLBT Community

PARTICIPANT FREQUENCY PERCENT

PARTICIPANT FREQUENCY PERCENT

PARTICIPANT FREQUENCY PERCENT