Acting in Solidarity: Cross-group Contact Between Disadvantaged Group Members and Advantaged Group Allies

The actions of advantaged group activists (sometimes called “allies”) are admirable, and they likely make meaningful contributions to the movements they support. However, a nuanced understanding of the role of advantaged group allies must also consider the potential challenges of their participation. Both in their everyday lives and during their activist work, advantaged group allies are especially likely to have direct contact with disadvantaged group members. This paper considers when such contact may harm rather than help resistance movements by disadvantaged groups. We also suggest that to avoid these undermining effects, advantaged group allies must effectively communicate support for social change, understand the implications of their own privilege, offer autonomy-oriented support, and resist the urge to increase their own feelings of inclusion by co-opting relevant marginalized social identities

Understanding the social and community support experiences of sexual and gender minority individuals in 12-Step programs

This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services on 25 Jan 2023, available at: http://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/10538720.2023.2172759.Sexual and gender minority individuals (e.g., gay, bisexual, non-binary, transgender; SGMI) are 2-6 times as likely as cisgender heterosexual individuals to experience alcohol or other substance use disorders. SGMI participate in 12-Step groups, such as Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), at high rates. Though social support is an established mechanism through which 12-Step programs support reductions in substance use, little is known about SGMI’s experiences of the social support in 12-Step programs. This qualitative study aims to understand the experiences of social and community support among SGMI involved in 12-Step programs. This study employed thematic analysis to interpret open-ended responses from 302 SGMI who had participated in 12-Step programs. Data was from The PRIDE Study, a large, national, online. longitudinal, cohort study of SGMI. Two themes emerged about how SGMI experienced social and community support in 12-Step programs: beneficial connections and harmful environments. Beneficial connections included a sense of community, shared experiences, and skills provision. Harmful environments included marginalization, oppression, violence, and bullying. This study highlights the variability of experiences of SGMI participating in 12-Step programs. These findings suggest that many SGMI may benefit from 12-Step programs but may need support in coping with potential harms that can emerge through participation

Screening gender minority people for harmful alcohol use

This study identifies how to screen for harmful alcohol use among gender minority (e.g., transgender and gender-expansive) people using brief screening methods and identifies which screening methods perform best among gender-expansive, transfeminine, and transmasculine subgroups, as screening recommendations are not currently available. Using 2018 Annual Questionnaire data from The PRIDE Study, area under the curve (AUC) values were compared to identify which screening methods (“4 or more” or “5 or more” drinks on one occasion in the past year, or one or more items from the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test [AUDIT]) best predicted (i) harmful alcohol use and (ii) one or more past year alcohol dependence symptoms or consequences. Among 1892 participants, “5 or more” drinks on one occasion (AUC ranges: 0.82-0.86) performed better than “4 or more” drinks (AUC ranges: 0.78-0.81) in predicting harmful drinking. The screening methods “4 or more” drinks, “5 or more” drinks, and the consumption items of the AUDIT (AUDIT-C) using a cutoff score of 3 all maximized sensitivity and specificity to predict alcohol dependence symptoms or consequences in gender minority people overall (AUC: 0.77-0.78). Screening for “5 or more” drinks on one occasion within the past year performed as well as or better than other screening methods to detect both harmful drinking and alcohol dependence-related symptoms or consequences. This single-item screening method can identify if more extensive alcohol use assessment is warranted with gender minority people

Healthcare Mistreatment, State-Level Policy Protections, and Healthcare Avoidance Among Gender Minority People

Introduction: This study examined whether past experiences of mistreatment in healthcare were associated with greater healthcare avoidance due to anticipated mistreatment among gender minority (GM) people. We evaluated whether state-level healthcare policy protections moderated this relationship. Methods: Data from the 2018 Annual Questionnaire of The PRIDE Study, a national longitudinal study on sexual and gender minority people’s health, were used in these analyses. Logistic regression modeling tested relationships between lifetime healthcare mistreatment due to gender identity or expression and past-year healthcare avoidance due to anticipated mistreatment among GM participants. Interactions between lifetime healthcare mistreatment and state-level healthcare policy protections and their relationship with past-year healthcare avoidance were tested. Results: Participants reporting any lifetime healthcare mistreatment had greater odds of past-year healthcare avoidance due to anticipated mistreatment among gender expansive people (n = 1290, OR = 4.71 [CI]: 3.57–6.20), transfeminine people (n = 263, OR = 10.32 [CI]: 4.72–22.59), and transmasculine people (n = 471, OR = 3.90 [CI]: 2.50–6.13). Presence of state-level healthcare policy protections did not moderate this relationship in any study groups. Conclusions: For GM people, reporting lifetime healthcare mistreatment was associated with healthcare avoidance due to anticipated mistreatment. State-level healthcare policy protections were not a moderating factor in this relationship. Efforts to evaluate the implementation and enforcement of state-level policies are needed. Continued efforts to understand instances of and to diminish healthcare mistreatment of GM people are recommended

Minority Stress, Structural Stigma, and Physical Health among Sexual and Gender Minority Individuals: Examining the Relative Strength of the Relationships

Background: Sexual and gender minority (SGM; i.e., non-heterosexual and transgender or gender-expansive, respectively) people experience physical health disparities attributed to greater exposure to minority stress (experiences of discrimination or victimization, anticipation of discrimination or victimization, concealment of SGM status, and internalization of stigma) and structural stigma. Purpose: To examine which components of minority stress and structural stigma have the strongest relationships with physical health among SGM people. Methods: Participants (5,299 SGM people, 1,902 gender minority individuals) were from The Population Research in Identity and Disparities for Equality (PRIDE) Study. Dominance analyses estimated effect sizes showing how important each component of minority stress and structural stigma was to physical health outcomes. Results: Among cisgender sexual minority women, transmasculine individuals, American Indian or Alaskan Native SGM individuals, Asian SGM individuals, and White SGM individuals a safe current environment for SGM people had the strongest relationship with physical health. For gender-expansive individuals and Black, African American, or African SGM individuals, the safety of the environment for SGM people in which they were raised had the strongest relationship with physical health. Among transfeminine individuals, victimization experiences had the strongest relationship with physical health. Among Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish individuals, accepting current environments had the strongest relationship with physical health. Among cisgender sexual minority men prejudice/discrimination experiences had the strongest relationship with physical health. Conclusion: Safe community environments had the strongest relationships with physical health among most groups of SGM people. Increasing safety and buffering the effects of unsafe communities are important for SGM health

Our pride, our joy: An intersectional constructivist grounded theory analysis of resources that promote resilience in SGM communities

Introduction Sexual and gender minority (SGM) communities, including lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, asexual, and Two-Spirit people, have historically been researched from a deficits-based approach that fails to highlight the ways communities survive and thrive in the face of adversity. This study endeavored to create a model of resources that promote SGM resilience using a sample that amplified traditionally underrepresented perspectives, including individuals from racial and/or ethnic minority groups, trans and/or gender diverse individuals, individuals on the asexual spectrum, and older adults. Methods Participant responses to three open-ended questions from The PRIDE Study’s (an online national longitudinal cohort study of SGM people) 2018 Annual Questionnaire were analyzed using constructivist grounded theory. These questions examined what brings people joy and what they appreciate most about their SGM identity. Participants (n = 315) were randomly selected from a larger sample of people who had responded to demographic questions and at least one open-ended question (N = 4,030) in a manner to ensure diverse representation across race/ethnicity, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, and region of residence. Results The proposed model includes social resources (Connecting with Others, Cultivating Family, Helping Others, Participating in Culture and Spirituality), affective generative resources (Engaging in Enriching Pursuits, Accessing Economic Resources), and introspective resources (Exploring One’s Authentic Self, Persevering through Hardship) that are theorized to contribute to SGM resilience across the life course. Conclusions SGM communities may tap into various resources to promote resilience. As public health practitioners, we can help to foster this resilience by resourcing and supporting initiatives that foster social connection, create spaces for community members to engage with various types of enrichment, facilitate access to economic resources, and provide support and inclusion for all SGM community members

From \u27Shark-Week\u27 to \u27Mangina\u27: An Analysis of Words Used by People of Marginalized Sexual Orientations and/or Gender Identities to Replace Common Sexual and Reproductive Health Terms

Purpose: To explore sexual and reproductive health (SRH)-related word-use among sexual and gender minority (SGM) individuals in the United States. Methods: In 2019, we fielded an online quantitative survey on the SRH experiences of SGM adults. Eligible participants included transgender, nonbinary, and gender-expansive (TGE) people assigned female or intersex at birth, and cisgender sexual minority women (CSMW) in the United States. The survey asked participants to indicate if they used each of nine SRH terms, and if not, to provide the word(s) they used. We analyzed patterns in replacement words provided by respondents and tested for differences by gender category with tests of proportions. Results: Among 1704 TGE and 1370 CSMW respondents, 613 (36%) TGE respondents and 92 (7%) CSMW respondents replaced at least 1 SRH term (p-for-difference \u3c0.001). Many (23%) replacement words/phrases were entirely unique. For six out of the nine terms, TGE respondents indicated that use of the provided term would depend on the context, the term did not apply to them, or they did not have a replacement word/phrase that worked for them. Conclusions: SRH terms commonly used in clinical and research settings cause discomfort and dysphoria among some SGM individuals. To address inequities in access to and quality of SRH care among SGM individuals, and to overcome long standing fear of mistreatment in clinical settings, more intentional word-use and elicitation from providers and researchers could increase the quality and affirming nature of clinical and research experiences for SGM people

Abortion experiences and preferences of transgender, nonbinary, and gender-expansive people in the United States

Background: Transgender, nonbinary, and gender-expansive people who were assigned female or intersex at birth experience pregnancy and have abortions. Scarce data have been published on individual abortion experiences or preferences of this understudied population. Objective: This study aimed to fill existing evidence gaps on the abortion experiences and preferences of transgender, nonbinary, and gender-expansive people in the United States to inform policies and practices to improve access to and quality of abortion care for this population. Study Design: In 2019, we recruited transgender, nonbinary, and gender-expansive people who were assigned female or intersex at birth at the age of ≥18 years from across the United States to participate in an online survey about sexual and reproductive health recruited through The Population Research in Identities and Disparities for Equality Study and online postings. We descriptively analyzed closed- and open-ended survey responses related to pregnancy history, abortion experiences, preferences for abortion method, recommendations to improve abortion care for transgender, nonbinary, and gender-expansive people, and respondent sociodemographic characteristics. Results: Most of the 1694 respondents were \u3c30 years of age. Respondents represented multiple gender identities and sexual orientations and resided across all 4 United States Census Regions. Overall, 210 respondents (12%) had ever been pregnant; these 210 reported 433 total pregnancies, of which 92 (21%) ended in abortion. For respondents’ most recent abortion, 41 (61%) were surgical, 23 (34%) were medication, and 3 (5%) were another method (primarily herbal). Most recent abortions took place at ≤9 weeks’ gestation (n=41, 61%). If they were to need an abortion today, respondents preferred medication abortion over surgical abortion in a 3:1 ratio (n=703 vs n=217), but 514 respondents (30%) did not know which method they would prefer. The reasons for medication abortion preference among the 703 respondents included a belief that it is the least invasive method (n=553, 79%) and the most private method (n=388, 55%). To improve accessibility and quality of abortion care for transgender, nonbinary, and gender-expansive patients, respondents most frequently recommended that abortion clinics adopt gender-neutral or gender-affirming intake forms, that providers use gender-neutral language, and that greater privacy be incorporated into the clinic. Conclusion: These data contribute substantially to the evidence base on individual experiences of and preferences for abortion care for transgender, nonbinary, and gender-expansive people. Findings can be used to adapt abortion care to better include and affirm the experiences of this underserved population

State-Level Policy Environments, Discrimination, and Victimization among Sexual and Gender Minority People

Legislation has been passed in some states to reduce discrimination and victimization toward sexual and gender minority people (SGM; people who are not solely heterosexual and/or whose gender identity is not equal to what is socially associated with sex assigned at birth). The purpose of these analyses is to test whether state-level policy environments are associated with past-year discrimination and victimization among SGM people. Cross-sectional data from The Population Research in Identity and Disparities for Equality (PRIDE) Study annual questionnaire (collected 2018–2019), a national study of the health of SGM adults in the USA, were used for these analyses. Measures included related to discrimination, victimization, and demographic characteristics. State-level policy environments were measured using data from the Movement Advancement Project. Logistic regression analyses evaluated state-level policy environment scores and past-year discrimination and victimization among gender identity categories. In this sample, 7044 people (gender minority n = 2530) were included. Cisgender sexual minority (odds ratio [OR] = 1.007, p = 0.041) and the gender expansive subgroup of gender minority people (OR = 1.010, p = 0.047) in states with more protective policy environments had greater odds of discrimination. The gender expansive subgroup was found to have greater odds of victimization in states with more protective policy environments (OR = 1.003, p \u3c 0.05). There was no relationship between state-level policy environments and victimization among any other study groups. SGM people may experience increased risk for discrimination and victimization despite legislative protections, posing continued risks for poor health outcomes and marginalization. Evaluation of factors (e.g., implementation strategies, systems of accountability) that influence the effectiveness of state-level polices on the reported experiences of discrimination and victimization among SGM people is needed

Pregnancy intentions and outcomes among transgender, nonbinary, and gender-expansive people assigned female or intersex at birth in the United States: Results from a national, quantitative survey

Background: Transgender, nonbinary, and gender-expansive (TGE) people experience pregnancy. Quantitative data about pregnancy intentions and outcomes of TGE people are needed to identify patterns in pregnancy intentions and outcomes and to inform clinicians how best to provide gender-affirming and competent pregnancy care. Aims: We sought to collect data on pregnancy intentions and outcomes among TGE people assigned female or intersex at birth in the United States. Methods: Collaboratively with a study-specific community advisory team, we designed a customizable, online survey to measure sexual and reproductive health experiences among TGE people. Eligible participants included survey respondents who identified as a man or within the umbrella of transgender, nonbinary, or gender-expansive identities; were 18 years or older; able to complete an electronic survey in English; lived in the United States; and were assigned female or intersex at birth. Participants were recruited through The PRIDE Study–a national, online, longitudinal cohort study of sexual and gender minority people–and externally via online social media postings, TGE community e-mail distribution lists, in-person TGE community events, and academic and community conferences. We conducted descriptive analyses of pregnancy-related outcomes and report frequencies overall and by racial and ethnic identity, pregnancy intention, or testosterone use. Results: Out of 1,694 eligible TGE respondents who provided reproductive history data, 210 (12%) had been pregnant. Of these, 115 (55%) had one prior pregnancy, 47 (22%) had two prior pregnancies, and 48 (23%) had three or more prior pregnancies. Of the 433 pregnancies, 169 (39%) resulted in live birth, 142 (33%) miscarried, 92 (21%) ended in abortion, two (0.5%) ended in stillbirth, two (0.5%) had an ectopic pregnancy, and seven (2%) were still pregnant; nineteen pregnancies (4%) had an unknown outcome. Among live births, 39 (23%) were delivered via cesarean section. Across all pregnancies, 233 (54%) were unintended. Fifteen pregnancies occurred after initiation of testosterone, and four pregnancies occurred while taking testosterone. Among all participants, 186 (11%) wanted a future pregnancy, and 275 (16%) were unsure; 182 (11%) felt “at risk” for an unintended pregnancy. Discussion: TGE people in the United States plan for pregnancy, experience pregnancy (intended and unintended) and all pregnancy outcomes, and are engaged in family building. Sexual and reproductive health clinicians and counselors should avoid assumptions about pregnancy capacity or intentions based on a patient’s presumed or stated gender or engagement with gender-affirming hormone therapy