Advertisement

Sexuality Research and Social Policy

, Volume 16, Issue 4, pp 488–500 | Cite as

Mapping the Landscape of Support and Safety Among Sexual Minority Women and Gender Non-conforming Individuals: Perceptions After the 2016 US Presidential Election

  • Laurie A. DrabbleEmail author
  • Cindy B. Veldhuis
  • Angie Wootton
  • Ellen D. B. Riggle
  • Tonda L. Hughes
Article

Abstract

As part of a larger online survey, we conducted an Internet-based study that included both qualitative and quantitative data from a national non-probability sample to examine how sexual minority women and gender non-conforming individuals described their experiences and concerns after the 2016 election. The current study explores responses in relation to local social and political climates. Quantitative analysis of survey responses (N = 969) examined changes in participant concerns relative to state policy context (number of positive policies offering equal rights and protections for LGBTQ communities) and size of community (e.g., urban and rural). Analysis of narrative responses to open-ended questions (n = 605) explored experiences and perceptions of safety and support relative to geographic location. Quantitative analyses showed no difference in levels of concern by size of community of residence and greater concerns among participants in higher equality states compared to those in negative equality states. Qualitative analyses revealed two broad categories of themes: perceptions of safety and support in the state, region or local context (safe havens and hostile locations), and strategies for navigating in the current or changing local social and political landscapes (hunkering down in safe places and with safe people, increasing vigilance and evasion, fleeing unsafe locations, and paving the road to a better future). Findings underscore the broad impact of national elections on perception of safety and civil rights at all levels of the social and political environments.

Keywords

Sexual minority women Gender non-conforming Transgender Election Social climate Geographic location 

Notes

Funding

Funding Research reported in this publication was supported in part by San José State University, the University of Illinois at Chicago, and Columbia University School of Nursing.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) (2018). Past LGBT nondiscrimination and anti-LGBT bills across the country Retrieved February 24, 2018.Google Scholar
  2. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.Google Scholar
  3. Brown, C., & Keller, C. J. (2018). The 2016 presidential election outcome: Fears, tension, and resiliency of GLBTQ communities. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 14(1–2), 101–129.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1550428X.2017.1420847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Byne, W. (2017). Sustaining progress toward LGBT health equity: A time for vigilance, advocacy, and scientific inquiry (editorial). LGBT Health, 4(1), 1–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Casazza, S. P., Ludwig, E., & Cohn, T. J. (2015). Heterosexual attitudes and behavioral intentions toward bisexual individuals: Does geographic area make a difference? Journal of Bisexuality, 15(4), 532–553.Google Scholar
  6. Coulter, R. W., Kenst, K. S., & Bowen, D. J. (2014). Research funded by the National Institutes of Health on the health of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender populations. American Journal of Public Health, 104(2), e105–e112.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Cresswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  8. Elazar, D. (1972). American federalism: A view from the states (2nd ed.). New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company.Google Scholar
  9. Fisher, C. M., Irwin, J. A., & Coleman, J. D. (2014). LGBT health in the midlands: A rural/urban comparison of basic health indicators. Journal of Homosexuality, 61(8), 1062–1090.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Fisher, P. I. (2016). Definitely not moralistic: State political culture and support for Donald Trump in the race for the 2016 Republican Presidential nomination. Political Science & Politics, 49(4), 743–747.Google Scholar
  11. Frost, D. M., & Fingerhut, A. W. (2016). Daily exposure to negative campaign messages decreases same-sex couples’ psychological and relational well-being. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 19(4), 477–492.Google Scholar
  12. Gallup (2017). Gay and Lesbian Rights Retrieved February 24, 2018, from http://www.gallup.com/poll/1651/gay-lesbian-rights.aspx.
  13. Garrison, S. M., Doane, M. J., & Elliott, M. (2017). Gay and lesbian experiences of discrimination, health, and well-being: Surrounding the presidential election. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1948550617732391.Google Scholar
  14. Garrison, S. M., Doane, M. J., & Elliott, M. (2018). Gay and lesbian experiences of discrimination, health, and well-being: Surrounding the presidential election. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9(2), 131–142.Google Scholar
  15. Gonzales, G., & McKay, T. (2017). What an emerging Trump Administration means for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender health. Health Equity, 1(1), 83–86.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Gonzalez, K., Ramirez, J., & Galupo, M. (2018). Increase in GLBTQ minority stress following the 2016 US presidential election. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 14(1–2), 130–151.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1550428X.2017.1420849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gonzalez, K. A., Pulice-Farrow, L., & Galupo, M. P. (2018). “My aunt unfriended me:” Narratives of GLBTQ family relationships post 2016 presidential election. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 14(1–2), 61–84.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1550428X.2017.1420845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hagen, W. B., Hoover, S. M., & Morrow, S. L. (2018). A grounded theory of sexual minority women and transgender individuals’ social justice activism. Journal of Homosexuality, 65(7), 833–859.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Haimson, O. L., & Hayes, G. R. (2017). Changes in social media affect, disclosure, and sociality for a sample of transgender Americans in 2016’s political climate. International Conference on Web and Social Media (ICWSM), 72–81.Google Scholar
  20. Hatzenbuehler, M. L. (2014). Structural stigma and the health of lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(2), 127–132.Google Scholar
  21. Hatzenbuehler, M. L. (2016). Structural stigma: Research evidence and implications for psychological science. American Psychologist, 71(8), 742–751.  https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000068.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Hatzenbuehler, M. L., Bränström, R., & Pachankis, J. E. (2018). Societal-level explanations for reductions in sexual orientation mental health disparities: Results from a ten-year, population-based study in Sweden. Stigma and Health, 3(1), 16–26.  https://doi.org/10.1037/sah0000066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hatzenbuehler, M. L., Flores, A. R., & Gates, G. J. (2017). Social attitudes regarding same-sex marriage and LGBT health disparities: Results from a national probability sample. Journal of Social Issues, 73(3), 508–528.Google Scholar
  24. Hatzenbuehler, M. L., Jun, H.-J., Corliss, H. L., & Austin, S. B. (2015). Structural stigma and sexual orientation disparities in adolescent drug use. Addictive Behaviors, 46, 14–18.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Hatzenbuehler, M. L., Keyes, K. M., & Hasin, D. S. (2009). State-level policies and psychiatric morbidity in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations. American Journal of Public Health, 99(12), 2275–2281.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. Hatzenbuehler, M. L., & Link, B. (2014). Introduction to the special issues on structural stigma and health. Social Science & Medicine, 103, 1–6.Google Scholar
  27. Hatzenbuehler, M. L., McLaughlin, K. A., Keyes, K. M., & Hasin, D. S. (2010). The impact of institutional discrimination on psychiatric disorders in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: A prospective study. American Journal of Public Health, 100(3), 452–459.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Hatzenbuehler, M. L., & Pachankis, J. E. (2016). Stigma and minority stress as social determinants of health among lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth: Research evidence and clinical implications. Pediatric Clinics of North America, 63(6), 985–997.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Hatzenbuehler, M. L., Phelan, J. C., & Link, B. G. (2013). Stigma as a fundamental cause of population health inequalities. American Journal of Public Health, 103(5), 813–821.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Heen, M. S., Lieberman, J. D., & Miethe, T. D. (2014). A comparison of different online sampling approaches for generating national samples. Las Vegas, NV. Retrieved from https://www.unlv.edu/sites/default/files/page_files/27/ComparisonDifferentOnlineSampling.pdf.
  31. Herek, G. M. (2015). Beyond “homophobia”: Thinking more clearly about stigma, prejudice, and sexual orientation. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 85(5S), S29–S37.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Hughto, J. M. W., Reisner, S. L., & Pachankis, J. E. (2015). Transgender stigma and health: A critical review of stigma determinants, mechanisms, and interventions. Social Science & Medicine, 147, 222–231.Google Scholar
  33. Lannutti, P. J. (2018). GLBTQ people who decided to marry after the 2016 U.S. election: Reasons for and meanings of marriage. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 14(1–2), 85–100.Google Scholar
  34. Levy, B. L., & Levy, D. L. (2016). When love meets hate: The relationship between state policies on gay and lesbian rights and hate crime incidence. Social Science Research, 61, 1–57.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2016.06.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lick, D. J., Durso, L. E., & Johnson, K. L. (2013). Minority stress and physical health among sexual minorities. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(5), 521–548.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. McCall, L., & Orloff, A. S. (2017). The multidimensional politics of inequality: Taking stock of identity politics in the US presidential election of 2016. The British Journal of Sociology, 68, S34–S56.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Movement Advancement Project. (2015). Mapping LGBT equality in America. Denver, CO. Retrieved from www.lgbtmap.org.
  38. Nadal, K. L., Whitman, C. N., Davis, L. S., Erazo, T., & Davidoff, K. C. (2016). Microaggressions toward lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and genderqueer people: A review of the literature. The Journal of Sex Research, 53(4–5), 488–508.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. National Bullying Prevention Center (2017). Bullying statistics Retrieved April 28, 2018, from http://www.pacer.org/bullying/resources/stats.asp.
  40. Oswald, R. F., Cuthbertson, C., Lazarevic, V., & Goldberg, A. E. (2010). New developments in the field: Measuring community climate. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 6(2), 214–228.Google Scholar
  41. Oswald, R. F., & Holman, E. G. (2013). Place matters: LGB families in community context. In A. E. Goldberg & K. R. Allen (Eds.), LGBT-parent families: Innovations in research and implications for practice (pp. 193–208). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  42. Pew Research Center (2017). Changing attitudes on gay marriage Retrieved February 24, 2018, from http://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/.
  43. Riggle, E. D., Rostosky, S. S., Drabble, L., Veldhuis, C. B., & Hughes, T. L. (2018). Sexual minority women’s and gender-diverse individuals’ hope and empowerment responses to the 2016 presidential election. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 14(1–2), 152–173.Google Scholar
  44. Riggle, E. D., Rostosky, S. S., & Horne, S. G. (2009). Marriage amendments and lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals in the 2006 election. Sexuality Research & Social Policy, 6(1), 80–89.Google Scholar
  45. Riggle, E. D., Wickham, R. E., Rostosky, S. S., Rothblum, E. D., & Balsam, K. F. (2016). Impact of civil marriage recognition for long-term same-sex couples. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 14(2), 223–232.Google Scholar
  46. Rostosky, S. S., Riggle, E. D., Horne, S. G., & Miller, A. D. (2009). Marriage amendments and psychological distress in lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) adults. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56(1), 56–66.Google Scholar
  47. Smith, C. P., & Freyd, J. J. (2013). Dangerous safe havens: Institutional betrayal exacerbates sexual trauma. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 26(1), 119–124.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Smith, C. P., & Freyd, J. J. (2014). Institutional betrayal. American Psychologist, 69(6), 575–587.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Solazzo, A., Brown, T. N., & Gorman, B. K. (2018). State-level climate, anti-discrimination law, and sexual minority health status: An ecological study. Social Science & Medicine, 196, 158–165.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.11.033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Stange, M., & Kazyak, E. (2016). Examining the nuance in public opinion of pro-LGB policies in a “Red State”. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 13(2), 142–157.Google Scholar
  51. Strolovitch, D. Z., Wong, J. S., & Proctor, A. (2017). A possessive investment in white heteropatriarchy? The 2016 election and the politics of race, gender, and sexuality. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 5(2), 353–363.Google Scholar
  52. Swank, E., Fahs, B., & Frost, D. M. (2013). Region, social identities, and disclosure practices as predictors of heterosexist discrimination against sexual minorities in the United States. Sociological Inquiry, 83(2), 238–258.Google Scholar
  53. Swank, E., Frost, D. M., & Fahs, B. (2012). Rural location and exposure to minority stress among sexual minorities in the United States. Psychology & Sexuality, 3(3), 226–243.Google Scholar
  54. Tan, J. Y., Baig, A. A., & Chin, M. H. (2017). High stakes for the health of sexual and gender minority patients of color. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 32(12), 1390–1395.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  55. Tankard, M. E., & Paluck, E. L. (2017). The effect of a Supreme Court decision regarding gay marriage on social norms and personal attitudes. Psychological Science, 28(9), 1334–1344.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. U.S. Department of Justice (2016). 2016 Hate crime statistics. Retrieved from https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2016.
  57. Veldhuis, C. B., Drabble, L., Riggle, E. D., Wootton, A. R., & Hughes, T. L. (2018a). “We won’t go back into the closet now without one hell of a fight”: Effects of the 2016 presidential election on sexual minority women’s and gender minorities’ stigma-related concerns. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 15(1), 12–24. Retrieved from.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-017-0305-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Veldhuis, C. B., Drabble, L., Riggle, E. D. B., Wootton, A., & Hughes, T. L. (2018b). “I fear for my safety, but would like to show bravery for others”: Violence and discrimination concerns among transgender gender non-conforming individuals after the 2016 presidential election. Violence and Gender, 5(1), 26–36.  https://doi.org/10.1089/vio.2017.0032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wang, T., Geffen, S., & Cahill, S. (2016). The current wave of anti-LGBT legislation: Historical context and implications for LGBT health. Retrieved from http://fenwayhealth.org/wp-content/uploads/The-Fenway-Institute-Religious-Exemption-Brief-June-2016.pdf.
  60. Williams, D. R., & Medlock, M. M. (2017). Health effects of dramatic societal events—Ramifications of the recent presidential election. New England Journal of Medicine, 376(23), 2295–2299.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Health & Human SciencesSan José State UniversitySan JoseUSA
  2. 2.School of NursingColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.Department of MedicineUniversity of California San FranciscoSan FranciscoUSA
  4. 4.Political Science and Gender and Women’s StudiesUniversity of KentuckyLexingtonUSA
  5. 5.School of Nursing & Department of PsychiatryColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations