While structural stigma has decreased substantially over the past two decades (Perales & Campbell, 2018), it remains a pernicious force constraining the opportunities and wellbeing of lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) Australians. Structural stigma comes in several forms, including discriminatory policies and legislation—such as the ban on same-sex marriage that existed in Australia until the end of 2017—and negative attitudes and stereotypes about LGB people. It also includes heteronormativity, an ideology that positions heterosexuality as the default norm and same-sex sexuality as inferior and “other”. Heteronormativity further incorporates beliefs about the roles that men and women are expected to play in society, how relationships should be conducted, and what “family” means. It can provide an inhospitable backdrop against which the family lives of LGB Australians unfold.

Structural stigma can produce disadvantage among LGB people across several life domains, including employment and earnings (Mize, 2016) and educational attainment (Mollborn & Everett, 2015). However, the largest and most consistently observed disparities between LGB and heterosexual people tend to be for mental health, emotional wellbeing, self-harm and suicidal behaviours (e.g., Perales, 2016, 2019; Perales & Campbell, 2019). In locations where levels of structural stigma are higher, these disparities are even greater (Perales & Todd, 2018). Of concern, the disadvantages LGB people experience with regards to their mental health and emotional wellbeing have persisted in recent times, even though levels of structural stigma have started to decrease (Perales, 2019).

According to the life course principle of “linked lives”, social structures can impact even our most personal and intimate relationships, with potentially harmful consequences for individual wellbeing. Chapter 2 provides a more extensive discussion of life course approaches. Consistent with this, one of the principal channels through which structural stigma produces mental health disadvantage among LGB people is by shaping their relationships within key contexts—including families, schools, workplaces, and communities. Recent evidence demonstrates that lower levels of social support and more frequent experiences of bullying, victimisation, and rejection in these contexts contribute to poorer mental health and emotional wellbeing among LGB Australians compared to their heterosexual peers (e.g., Perales & Todd, 2018; Perales & Campbell, 2020). However, significant gaps in our knowledge remain, and these must be addressed if we are to eradicate the mental health disadvantage experienced by LGB people. To that end, in this chapter we apply the life course perspective to explore the role of family dynamics in producing mental health disadvantage in the lives of LGB Australians.

In part one we focus on one of the most fundamental and enduring relationships or linked lives: that between a person and their parent/s. It is well-established that parents play a key role in shaping the emotional wellbeing of LGB youth (Perales & Campbell, 2020). However, most prior examinations of the parent-LGB child relationship have focused on a single point in time—overwhelmingly, adolescence. We build on this evidence by taking a longitudinal approach and drawing on the life course principles of “trajectories” and “turning points”. Following individuals across the life course, we investigate levels of closeness, support, and overall satisfaction experienced by LGB and heterosexual people in their relationships with their parents. This allows us to identify when disparities by sexual orientation in the parent-child relationship emerge, the trajectories they follow over time, and the existence of turning points when relationships significantly worsen or improve. We also examine associations between parent-child relationship quality and emotional wellbeing from childhood into middle age, thereby shedding light on how parents contribute to mental health disadvantage among LGB people at different stages of the life course.

In part two we turn to parenthood from the focal point of view of the LGB person. We explore the parenting desires and expectations of childless Australians according to their gender and sexual orientation, as well as the associations between these and mental health. Studies from outside Australia have found that lesbian women and gay men are less likely to report aspirations or intentions for parenthood than their heterosexual peers (e.g., Gato et al., 2020; Riskind & Tornello, 2017). These differences appear to be attributable to the practical and psychosocial barriers to parenthood that lesbian and gay people face, which can lead them to believe that their identity is incompatible with being a parent and that they will be unable to attain parenthood even if they desire it. Given how fundamental family is to the human experience, having parenting desires suppressed or thwarted can result in negative repercussions for one’s mental health (Payne et al., 2019). Therefore, this constitutes another example of how family dynamics can produce disadvantage in the lives of LGB people. Here, we investigate this in the Australian context for the first time.

We also consider how disadvantageous family dynamics can accumulate within the lives of LGB people and across generations by posing a novel question: do poorer-quality relationships with parents constrain the parenting desires and expectations of LGB people? Positive relationships with parents may buffer LGB people against some of the negative impacts of heteronormative social structures, reducing the psychosocial barriers to parenthood they would otherwise face. In the other direction, being rejected by one’s parents may increase internalised homophobia and harmful self-concepts among LGB people and decrease their expectations of receiving support as a parent. We therefore investigate whether LGB people who are less satisfied with their relationships with their parents are not only more likely to suffer from lower emotional wellbeing, but also less likely to desire or expect to have children of their own.

Part 1: LGB People and Their Parents

Parent-Child Relationships During Adolescence

Adolescence is characterised by rapid physical, cognitive, social and emotional changes. A critical stage of the life course, it is the time when future trajectories in education, employment, health, wealth, and family begin to take shape. While adolescents increasingly turn their attention to the outside world and spend more time with their peers, as Chaps. 6 and 8 in this volume show, parents continue to play a central role in shaping their development and wellbeing. By providing comfort, support, reassurance and resources, parents act as the secure base their adolescent child needs as they step into the world as independent beings. By taking an interest in their child’s life, spending time together in joint activities, engaging in their education and reflecting a positive appraisal of them, parents facilitate the development of skills that are fundamental to achieving one’s potential and living a happy and healthy life. These include emotional self-regulation, confidence, resilience, and a positive self-concept.

One group who can especially benefit from these parental investments are LGB youth. The development of sexual and romantic identities is a core task of adolescence, as young people become increasingly aware of their attractions to others (or lack thereof). This undertaking comes with additional complexities for individuals who experience same-sex attractions in the context of a heteronormative society. The social construction of heterosexuality as the default norm places a unique burden on individuals who are not exclusively heterosexual to “come out”. As LGB youth become aware of and reveal their “difference” from their heterosexual peers, they are at an increased risk of being bullied and rejected in school and the broader community (Perales & Campbell, 2020; Robinson et al., 2014). Parents can play a pivotal role in buffering their adolescent child from the negative impacts of these hostile environments (Hillier et al., 2010). By communicating unconditional love and acceptance, parents can challenge heterosexist and homophobic beliefs and help prevent adolescents from internalising them (Carastathis et al., 2017).

Parental Rejection of LGB Youth

The homophobia that permeates outside environments can also dominate within the family home. Thus, not only are LGB youth more likely than their heterosexual peers to need their parents’ acceptance and support, they are also less likely to receive it. Disclosing their sexual orientation to parents can be a traumatic event for LGB youth, given their emotional and material dependence on their parents coupled with the possibility of rejection (Hillier et al., 2010). Some LGB youth will distance themselves from their parents prior to coming out as they grapple with these anxieties. Regardless of whether their fears are eventually realised, these young people miss out on the benefits of a close and supportive relationship with their parents at a critical stage of their development. On a positive note, Australian evidence indicates that the proportion of LGB youth disclosing their sexual orientation to and receiving support from their parents has been increasing over the past two decades (Hillier et al., 2010). However, this same evidence shows that a substantial minority still do not feel able to come out to their parents, or experience rejection when they do.

What Does Parental Rejection Look Like?

Carastathis et al. (2017) interviewed 21 gay and lesbian Australians about their lived experience of being rejected by their parents because of their sexuality. They found that rejection was sometimes subtle. For example, parents expressed disappointment and sadness that their child would not achieve the normative ideal of heterosexual marriage and parenthood that they had envisaged. While not explicitly rejecting their child, they instead rejected their child’s partner or avoided any discussion of that aspect of their child’s life. In other instances, parental rejection was more blatant. Some parents withdrew warmth, nurturing, interest and concern from their LGB child. Others subjected their child to verbal abuse or condemnation. In the most extreme cases, parents became a risk to their child’s physical safety.

In the only study of its kind, we analysed time-use diaries completed by more than 3000 young people aged 14–15 years (Perales et al., 2020a). Over the course of a day, young people recorded where they were, what they were doing and who they were with. On average, we found that sexual minority youth (i.e., those who reported being attracted to the same-sex, both sexes, or who were unsure) spent the same amount of time with their mothers, but significantly less time with their fathers, compared to their heterosexual peers (i.e., those attracted to the other sex only). This is consistent with evidence that men hold more homophobic attitudes than women (Perales & Campbell, 2018), and that LGB youth are less likely to disclose to their fathers than their mothers (Hillier et al., 2010). Given the documented benefits for children and adolescents of time spent with an involved father (e.g., Cano et al., 2019), we concluded that reduced time with fathers may represent one mechanism of disadvantage affecting sexual minority youth.

The Impacts of Rejection on LGB Youth

The early teen years—the average age for coming out—are a particularly vulnerable time for homelessness risk among LGB youth (Dempsey et al., 2020). Physical and verbal abuse can leave LGB youth feeling unsafe at home, prompting some to flee (Hillier et al., 2010; Robinson et al., 2014). Other times, parents force their child to leave. For these youth, “home” can become a revolving series of refuges, foster homes, and hostels (Robinson et al., 2014). Changes of school may be frequent, resulting in interruptions to the young person’s education. The negative implications of this disruptive adolescence for the remainder of the life course are not hard to imagine.

Even when LGB youth are “tolerated” by their parents and rejection is subtler, it is still likely to come at a high cost to the young person’s social and emotional wellbeing. Parents are powerful agents of socialisation for their children. When they react negatively to their adolescent’s sexual orientation and express homophobic attitudes, these can be internalised by the young person (Carastathis et al., 2017). Feelings of confusion, alienation and self-hatred can ensue, leading to mental health problems and self-destructive behaviours such as self-harm and substance abuse (Carastathis et al., 2017; Robinson et al., 2014). The ultimate consequences can be dire. A lack of family acceptance has been identified as the defining feature of suicides by lesbian and gay Australians under the age of 30 (Skerrett et al., 2017).

In our own analyses of self-reported survey data from a nationally representative Australian sample, we found evidence of wide-ranging health and wellbeing disparities in LGB youth relative to their heterosexual peers (Perales & Campbell, 2019). These disparities were especially large for self-harm, suicidal thoughts and behaviours, socio-emotional functioning, and general health. LGB youth also rated their relationship with their parents as significantly less close and supportive than heterosexual youth on average. In a subsequent mediation analysis, we demonstrated that the health disadvantage experienced by LGB youth could be largely explained by these deficits in the parent-child relationship (Perales & Campbell, 2020).

Parent-Child Relationships at Other Ages

It seems unequivocal that parental rejection produces disadvantage in the lives of LGB youth. Whether blatant or subtle, the negative consequences of this rejection have the potential to reverberate throughout the life course. However, there is very little evidence on what happens in the parent-child relationship either before or after the critical stage of adolescence (Reczek, 2020). Internationally, the empirical literature on the family relationships of LGB persons has tended to focus on discrete points in time and an understanding of “how family relationships unfold and accumulate across the life course” has been missing (Reczek, 2020, p. 316). Taking adolescence as the starting point, our aim in the first part of this chapter is to look both backwards and forwards to address these gaps in the literature.

When Do Disparities in the Parent-Child Relationship Begin?

Given that most LGB youth will come out in their early teens, it makes sense that the focus of the literature has been on this age group. Yet, there are plausible reasons why distance in the parent-LGB child relationship could emerge prior to adolescence. First, some LGB youth might withdraw from their parents prior to coming out if they expect that their parents will reject them. A substantial minority (15–36%) of LGB youth report being aware of their same-sex attractions before 10 years of age (Hillier et al., 2010; Robinson et al., 2014), so it is possible that distance in the parent-child relationship could be evident in earlier age years. Second, there is an association between non-heterosexuality in adulthood and gender non-conformity during childhood: on average, LGB people display higher levels of gender non-conforming behaviours during their childhood than heterosexual people (Xu et al., 2019). Some parents might reject their child because of their gender non-conformity or the perception that their child will grow up to be gender or sexuality diverse.

Identifying when disparities in the parent-LGB child relationship begin and how they develop across adolescence are important tasks. This knowledge can shed light on how disadvantage accumulates over the LGB life course and when and where we should intervene to prevent it. Yet, to our knowledge, no previous Australian studies have examined the parent-LGB child relationship across childhood and adolescence using longitudinal (prospective) data. In fact, there is only one international study that has done so. Xu et al. (2019) analysed data from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children in the UK. They found an association between the quality of relationships with parents reported at 9 years of age and the sexual orientation reported by these same young people at age 15. Specifically, adolescents who reported a non-heterosexual orientation had reported poorer relationships with their parents during childhood, on average, than adolescents who reported a heterosexual orientation. This association remained after levels of gender non-conforming behaviour during childhood were accounted for.

How Do Disparities in the Parent-Child Relationship Track Across Adulthood?

The second important gap in the literature that we address in part one of this chapter concerns how relationships between LGB people and their parents track across adulthood. It is possible that relationships improve over time as parents adjust to and accept their child’s sexuality diversity. There is some evidence that getting legally married or becoming a parent can normalise and legitimise a child’s non-heterosexuality in the eyes of their parents and lead to closer, more supportive intergenerational relationships (Power et al., 2012; Reczek, 2020). However, in a minority of cases these same events lead to parental rejection (Reczek, 2020). More than half of the lesbian and gay people in Carastathis et al.’s (2017) study continued to experience some level of rejection from family members years after disclosing their sexual orientation. Studies originating in the Netherlands (Fischer & Kalmijn, 2021) and Germany (Hank & Salzburger, 2015) have found that LGB adults are less close to their parents than heterosexual adults, although these differences are modest in size. On the other hand, Australian research has found that parents are more likely to make financial transfers to their adult child if their child is lesbian, gay or bisexual rather than heterosexual (Perales & Huang, 2020).

What Are the Implications for Emotional Wellbeing and Mental Health?

Finally, in part one of this chapter we investigate the implications of relationships with parents for the emotional wellbeing of LGB people across the life course. As we discussed earlier, the evidence on this for children and adolescents is robust, but researchers have yet to establish if parents matter to the same extent over time. On the one hand, the strong evidence that family ties shape health across the lifespan in the general population suggests that they do (Reczek, 2020). On the other hand, LGB adults may come to compensate for a lack of close, supportive relationships with their parents through relationships with partners, friends, and the LGB community. Consistent with this, Australian research found that LGB parents felt less connected to their families of origin but more connected to their friends than heterosexual parents (Power et al., 2015). Meanwhile, both groups reported similar levels of psychological distress, suggesting that among LGB people any negative impacts arising from a lack of support from their parents was mitigated by increased support from their friends.

Generating New Empirical Evidence for Australia

To answer these questions, we utilised data from two nationally representative samples of Australians. To investigate parent-child relationships and emotional wellbeing across childhood and adolescence we analysed data from the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children (LSAC). In keeping with our previous analyses of these data (Perales & Campbell, 2020; Perales et al., 2020a), we compared two groups of young people: a heterosexual group (n = 4477, 82.5%) comprising those who reported being attracted to the other sex only, and an LGB group (n = 952, 17.5%) comprising those who reported being attracted to the same sex, both sexes, or who were unsure (questioning). Reports of sexual attractions were taken from the most recent survey in 2018, when young people from LSAC’s younger cohort (the so-called “B” cohort) were aged 14–15 years and those from the older cohort (the so-called “K” cohort) were aged 18–19 years.

From ages 10/11, children in LSAC have reported on their relationships with their parents. Specifically, they have been asked 8 questions from the Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment (Armsden & Greenberg, 1987), measuring the extent to which they feel emotionally close to their parents, accepted by them, trust them and feel able to talk to them about their problems. We calculated the mean of the 8 items for each young person, with scores ranging from 1 (low on closeness) to 4 (high on closeness). From ages 10/11, children have also been asked to report on their emotional wellbeing using the emotional problems subscale of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (Goodman, 1997). Specifically, they have been asked 5 questions measuring the extent to which they have felt worried, unhappy, nervous, and scared over the past 6 months. Mean scores for the 5 items were transformed to range from 0 (poorest emotional wellbeing) to 100 (best emotional wellbeing).

To investigate the parent-child relationship and emotional wellbeing across adulthood we analysed data from the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey. Participants have been asked about their sexual orientation in Waves 12 (2012) and 16 (2016) of the HILDA Survey. Again, we divided the sample into two groups: one comprising those people who identified as heterosexual (n = 17,579, 96%), and another comprising those people who identified as lesbian, gay or bisexual in at least one of the two waves (n = 740, 4%).

Every year in the HILDA survey, participants rate how satisfied they are with their relationships with their parents on a scale from 0 (completely dissatisfied) to 10 (completely satisfied). They also report the state of their mental health over the past 4 weeks, including how often they have felt nervous, happy, or down, using 5 items from the SF-36 Mental Health Scale (Ware & Sherbourne, 1992). Total scores were transformed to range from 0 (poorest mental health) to 100 (best mental health).

Results for Relationships with Parents Over Time

Figure 12.1 below shows the average level of closeness to parents for heterosexual and LGB youth between ages 10 and 19. The first thing to note is that the average score on closeness to parents for LGB youth is high: on a scale of 1–4, it never drops below 3. This suggests that most LGB youth have a good relationship with their parents across childhood and adolescence. However, on average, LGB youth were less likely to feel close to and supported by their parents than heterosexual youth at all ages. While one-third (33.5%) of heterosexual youth rated their closeness to their parents at the maximum score of 4, only one-fifth (20.4%) of LGB youth did so. Meanwhile, LGB youth were twice as likely as heterosexual youth to rate their closeness to parents at a score of 2 or under (8.3% vs. 4.2%).

Fig. 12.1
A plot graph of age versus closeness to parents. The x-axis represents age ranging from 10 to 19, and the y-axis represents closeness to parents ranging from 2.5 to 4.

Closeness to parents among heterosexual and LGB youth ages 10–19.

Note: Predicted closeness to parents by age for LGB and heterosexual youth based on regression model with random effects, controlling for child’s sex. (Source: Longitudinal Study of Australian Children. Waves 4 (2010) – 8 (2018), Cohorts “B” and “K”)

Full size image

Irrespective of a young person’s sexual orientation, it is normal for some distance to develop in the parent-child relationship during adolescence (Seiffge-Krenke et al., 2010). Consistent with this, levels of closeness to parents declined for heterosexual youth from 12 years onwards, while for LGB youth this decline began at 11 years and was more pronounced. This earlier and steeper decline in the parent-child relationship is consistent with arguments that some LGB youth are likely to withdraw from their parents as they become increasingly aware of their sexual orientation and contemplate the repercussions of disclosing it. In other cases, stress on the parent-child relationship may come later as LGB youth begin exploring their sexual and romantic feelings, engaging in sexual activity, and disclosing their sexual orientation to others. Average closeness to parents hit a low point for both groups at 17 years, before trending back upwards. However, at 19 years, when our period of observation ends, LGB youth continued to rate their relationships with parents as less close and supportive than heterosexual youth on average.

Turning now to adulthood, Fig. 12.2 shows predicted levels of satisfaction with relationships with parents for heterosexual and LGB adults between the ages 15 and 55. We chose 55 years as our end point because a substantial proportion of parents will be deceased after this time, making results less reliable and more difficult to interpret. Average levels of satisfaction were high for both groups—generally between 7 and 8 out of a maximum of 10—while differences between the two groups were modest. One in four (25.5%) heterosexual people reported being “completely satisfied” with their relationships with parents compared to one in five (19.8%) LGB people. Meanwhile, LGB people were somewhat more likely than heterosexual people to report low levels of satisfaction with their relationships with parents (i.e., a score of 0–4: 12.2% vs. 7.5% respectively).

Fig. 12.2
A plot graph of age versus satisfaction with relationships with parents. The x-axis represents age ranging from 15 to 55, and the y-axis represents closeness to parents ranging from 6.5 to 8.5.

Satisfaction with relationships with parents among heterosexual and LGB people ages 15–55.

Note: Predicted satisfaction with relationship with parents by age for LGB and heterosexual people based on regression model with random effects, controlling for respondent’s sex. (Source: Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia Survey. Waves 1(2001) – 19(2019))

Full size image

Consistent with our analyses of the LSAC data, we found that LGB adolescents in the HILDA Survey reported lower levels of satisfaction with their relationships with parents than heterosexual adolescents, a gap that persisted across their 20’s. In fact, for LGB people the average level of satisfaction with relationships with parents never rose above that seen in adolescence (approximately 7.5 out of 10). This suggests that, if some LGB individuals do experience an improvement in their relationship with their parents over time, this must be offset by others who experience a deterioration. For both heterosexual and LGB people, satisfaction dropped to its lowest levels between the ages of 40 and 45, before increasing somewhat during their 50’s. The gap between the two groups was smaller at this time than it was during adolescence.

Results for Associations Between Relationships with Parents and Mental Health/Emotional Wellbeing

Figure 12.3 shows the associations between closeness to parents and emotional wellbeing for LGB and heterosexual youth between the ages of 10 and 19. Higher values on the vertical axis reflect better outcomes (i.e., greater emotional wellbeing). LGB and heterosexual youth who reported high levels of closeness to their parents reported similarly high levels of emotional wellbeing at age 10. However, following the top two lines across the graph, we can see that their trajectories diverged after that. Heterosexual youth who were close to their parents reported consistently high levels of emotional wellbeing across adolescence, while LGB youth who were equally close to their parents reported decreasing levels of emotional wellbeing as adolescence progressed.

Fig. 12.3
A plot graph of age versus emotional wellbeing. The x-axis represents age ranging from 10 to 19, and the y-axis represents closeness to parents ranging from 25 to 85.

Emotional wellbeing by closeness to parents among heterosexual and LGB youth ages 10–19.

Note: Predicted levels of emotional wellbeing by age and closeness to parents for LGB and heterosexual youth based on regression model with random effects, controlling for child’s sex. (Source: Longitudinal Study of Australian Children. Waves 4(2010) – 8(2018), Cohorts “B” and “K”)

Full size image

The two lines at the bottom of the graph represent the predicted outcomes of LGB and heterosexual youth reporting low levels of closeness to their parents. At age 10, these two groups reported similar, moderate levels of emotional wellbeing. Among the heterosexual youth who did not feel close to their parents, predicted levels of emotional wellbeing declined gradually across adolescence from 57 to 47 points. Meanwhile, for the LGB youth who were not close to their parents the decline in emotional wellbeing was steeper, dropping from 52 to 30 points across adolescence.

Altogether, there are three key takeaways from this analysis. First, closeness to and support from parents is important for the emotional wellbeing of all youth regardless of their age or sexual orientation. Second, average levels of emotional wellbeing decrease for LGB youth across adolescence irrespective of how close they are to their parents. Third, LGB youth reporting low levels of closeness to their parents have the steepest drop in emotional wellbeing and, by the end of adolescence, exhibit substantially lower levels of emotional wellbeing than any other group. Thus, the combination of sexuality diversity and poor relationships with parents should be considered an important marker of vulnerability among young people.

Figure 12.4 is comparable to Fig. 12.3 and shows associations between satisfaction with relationships with parents and mental health in LGB and heterosexual people from ages 15 to 55. Again, higher values on the vertical axis reflect more positive outcomes (i.e., better mental health). Consistent with what we observed in Fig. 12.3, the poorest mental health at age 15 was reported by LGB youth who were completely dissatisfied with their relationships with their parents. This group had a predicted average mental health score of 52 out of 100. Heterosexual youth who were dissatisfied with their relationships with parents fared somewhat better with an average predicted score of 59, yet they still had substantially poorer mental health than heterosexual youth who were completely satisfied with their relationships with parents (predicted score = 76). LGB youth who were completely satisfied with their relationships with parents fell in between with an average predicted score of 69.

Fig. 12.4
A plot graph of age versus mental health. The x-axis represents age ranging from 15 to 55, and the y-axis represents closeness to parents ranging from 40 to 80.

Mental health according to satisfaction with relationships with parents among heterosexual and LGB people ages 15–55.

Note: Predicted mental health by age and satisfaction with relationship with parents for heterosexual and LGB people based on regression model with random effects, controlling for respondent’s sex. (Source: Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia Survey. Waves 1(2001) – 19(2019))

Full size image

Similar to what we observed in the LSAC sample, heterosexual people in the HILDA Survey who were completely satisfied with their relationships with parents maintained consistently high levels of mental health over time. For LGB people who were completely satisfied with relationships with parents, average mental health scores also remained high. However, at no point did they reach parity with levels observed among their heterosexual counterparts.

Meanwhile, people who were completely dissatisfied with their relationships with parents experienced an improvement in their mental health as they aged, regardless of their sexual orientation. This suggests compensation and resilience: people who have negative relationships with their parents may compensate by forming close relationships with friends, partners, colleagues, and community, and over time their relationships with their parents may matter less for their emotional wellbeing. Nevertheless, the improvement in mental health among LGB people who were completely dissatisfied with their relationships with parents was less pronounced than it was for their heterosexual counterparts. By age 55, LGB people who were completely dissatisfied with their relationships with parents remained the most vulnerable group, experiencing a mental health penalty of around 17 points compared to heterosexual people who were completely satisfied with their relationships with parents.

Summary of Findings from Part One

Our first set of results for this chapter has shown that inequalities between LGB and heterosexual people in the quality of relationships with their parents emerge at the onset of adolescence and persist across adulthood. Meanwhile, the emotional wellbeing of all LGB youth declines over the course of adolescence and this drop is especially pronounced for LGB youth with very low levels of closeness to and support from their parents. Satisfaction with relationships with parents becomes less important for shaping the mental health of LGB people as they move through the life course. However, at all ages, LGB people with the poorest-quality relationships with parents experience the worst mental health and emotional wellbeing of all groups. In part two, we extend our focus across the generations and consider whether the less favourable relationships with parents we observed in part one play any role in shaping LGB people’s desires and expectations to become parents themselves.

Part 2: LGB People’s Desires and Expectations for Parenthood

Parenthood is a role of great personal significance and a highly valued life goal for many people, irrespective of their sexual orientation. Heterosexual and LGB people report valuing parenthood equally, believing that the associated rewards justify the work and costs involved (Riskind & Patterson, 2010). Regardless of gender composition, couples with parenting desires report the same motivations for wanting to have children (Santona et al., 2021). These include feelings of happiness, affection, fulfilment, positive benefits for the entire family, and a wish to live symbolically through one’s children after death.

Yet despite placing an equal value on parenthood, studies from countries including Italy, Israel, and the UK have consistently found that lesbian women and gay men report lower parenting desires, intentions and expectations than their heterosexual peers (Baiocco & Laghi, 2013; Gato et al., 2020; Leal et al., 2019; Shenkman, 2012; Tate & Patterson, 2019). For example, an analysis of nationally representative data from the US found that childless heterosexual women and men were almost four times as likely to express parenting desires as childless lesbian women or gay men (Riskind & Tornello, 2017). Meanwhile, the parenting desires of bisexual people did not differ from those of heterosexual people. This may be because bisexual people are more likely to form long-term partnerships with and/or marry a member of the other sex rather than the same sex (Gates, 2015). Their experiences of forming a family may more closely resemble those of heterosexual people than lesbian or gay people as a result.

Sexual orientation has further been found to shape correlations between parenting desires and intentions/expectations. Among those who reported a desire to have children, lesbian women were just as likely as heterosexual women to intend to become a parent (Riskind & Tornello, 2017). However, gay men who desired to have children were significantly less likely than heterosexual men to intend to fulfil those desires. In fact, gay men in the US were more than six times as likely as heterosexual men to express that they wanted but did not intend to have children (Riskind & Tornello, 2017). Similarly, in an Israeli sample, more than two-thirds of gay men reported a strong desire to have children (Shenkman, 2012). Yet less than a third of those men wanting to have children believed they had a high chance of becoming a parent in the future.

Barriers to Parenthood

The lower parenting desires and expectations reported by lesbian and gay people can be largely if not completely attributed to the unique barriers to parenthood that they face. Pathways to parenthood are characterised by more practical complications for same-sex couples than for different-sex couples. For example, same-sex couples must make decisions around method of conception, which member of the couple will be the biological parent and donor anonymity (Perales et al., 2020b). These decisions can be further complicated by the legal framework in which couples find themselves. In Australia, for example, commercial surrogacy is illegal. Gay men wishing to conceive a child in this way must therefore either find an altruistic surrogate or access commercial surrogacy in another country that allows it, such as the USFootnote 1 (Perales et al., 2020b).

In addition to these practical barriers, lesbian and gay people face psychosocial barriers to parenthood. Heteronormative ideology positions the nuclear, heterosexual family as the ideal, while lesbian and gay identities are constructed as incompatible with parenthood. In one Australian study, participants read hypothetical vignettes and consistently rated heterosexual parents as more responsible, emotionally stable, competent and nurturing, as well as better role models for their children, than lesbian or gay parents (Morse et al., 2008). These beliefs are reinforced through media representations and interpersonal interactions in community and health care settings (Perales et al., 2020b). Gay men are especially likely to be stigmatised as parents due to the historical conflation of homosexuality with paedophilia and the notion that men are naturally less nurturing than women (Perales et al., 2020b). Several international studies have found that gay and lesbian people anticipate more stigma upon becoming parents than heterosexual people, and that this accounts for their lowered desires and expectations to have children (Gato et al., 2020; Leal et al., 2019; Shenkman, 2021). In a heteronormative and homophobic society, many gay and lesbian people assume that their sexual orientation forecloses the possibility of becoming a parent (Hayman et al., 2015; Murphy, 2013).

The Importance of Support from Own Parents

Another psychosocial barrier to parenthood that gay and lesbian people face is lower expectations of social support upon becoming parents. As we demonstrated in the first part of this chapter, LGB people report lower support from, closeness to, and satisfaction with their relationships with parents than heterosexual people on average. These disparities are evident across the life course and could contribute to lowered parenting desires and expectations among lesbian and gay people. Irrespective of sexual orientation, people who feel closer to and expect greater support from their parents and other family members are more likely to wish to become parents themselves (Baiocco & Laghi, 2013; Gato et al., 2020). Crucially, support from friends and the LGB community may not always compensate for a lack of support from family when lesbian or gay people become parents. Becoming a parent is still seen as a heteronormative act within segments of the LGB community (Gato et al., 2020). Lesbian women have reported being rejected by friends upon becoming a mother, with one participant in an Australian study stating, “there are a proportion of the lesbian community who are very anti-children” (Hayman et al., 2015, p. 398).

Relationships with parents may shape lesbian and gay people’s parenting desires and expectations for reasons other than expectations of support. As we discussed earlier in the chapter, being rejected by parents can lead to the internalisation of homophobic beliefs and feelings of self-hatred in LGB people (Carastathis et al., 2017), and these feelings may contribute to lower parenting desires and expectations. Consistent with this premise, Shenkman (2012) found that sexual orientation self-acceptance was a significant, positive predictor of expectations for fatherhood among gay men. Meanwhile, perceived support from family and significant others buffered the impact of minority stressors (such as internalised homophobia and felt stigma) on parenting desires and intentions in an Italian sample of lesbian and gay people (Scandurra et al., 2019). This suggests that being accepted and supported by parents may help lesbian and gay people see themselves as worthy of having children and capable of overcoming the practical barriers involved.

Associations Between Parenting Desires, Expectations, and Mental Health

When social structures interfere with a person’s aspirations to have children, there may be negative consequences for their mental health and wellbeing (Gato et al., 2020). Existing evidence supports this proposition. For example, a relationship between expectations for parenthood and depression has been reported in two Israeli studies. In their sample of 183 gay men, Shenkman (2012) found that greater expectations of fatherhood were associated with significantly lower depressive symptoms. This finding was replicated in a sample of gay men, lesbian women, and heterosexual men and women: those with higher expectations for parenthood had lower depressive symptoms and higher average of happiness and life satisfaction (Shenkman & Abramovitch, 2021).

Analysing data from approximately 1500 gay men in the US, Bauermeister (2014) found that the association between aspirations for fatherhood and depressive symptoms was heavily dependent on the legislative context of the state in which men lived. Discriminatory legislation (such as the banning of same-sex marriage, same-sex adoptions or second-parent adoptions) represent barriers to fulfilling parenting desires for same-sex couples. Such legislation is also likely to inform gay men’s perceptions of how much support they will receive and how much stigma they will face should they become a parent. Consistent with these arguments, Bauermeister (2014) found a negative relationship between aspirations for parenthood and depressive symptoms among gay men living in states without discriminatory legalisation (i.e., higher aspirations = lower depressive symptoms), but a positive relationship between these two constructs among men living in states that had banned same-sex marriage (i.e., higher aspirations = higher depressive symptoms).

New Analyses for Australia

In this next section of the chapter we present new evidence on the parenting desires and expectations of childless Australians according to their gender and sexual orientation. In addition, we examine the role of satisfaction with relationships with parents in predicting parenting desires and expectations, and the associations between parenting desires, expectations, and mental health. To do this we used data from the HILDA Survey. To be consistent with prior international studies, we only analysed data from respondents who were childless at the time in which the survey was administered.

As mentioned earlier in the chapter, sexual orientation was measured in waves 12 (2012) and 16 (2016) of the HILDA survey. In these waves, participants aged 15–54 years were also asked to pick a number between 0 and 10 to show how they felt about having a child in the future. The response scale ranged from 0 (definitely don’t want children) to 10 (very much like to have children). To create a dichotomous measure of desire to have children, we followed the approach of Shenkman (2012) and assigned a score of 1 (wants children) to those who responded with 7–10, and a score of 0 (ambivalent/doesn’t want children) to those who responded 0–6. Participants aged 15–54 years were also asked about their expectations for having a child in the future. The response scale ranged from 0 (very unlikely) to 10 (very likely). To create a dichotomous measure of expectations, we gave a score of 1 (expects to have children) to those who responded with 7–10, and a score of 0 (unsure/doesn’t expect to have children) to those who responded 0–6.

Given that people experience different barriers to achieving parenthood according to the intersection of their gender and sexual orientation, we created six groups for analysis: lesbian women (n = 106, 1.2%), gay men (n = 188, 2.1%), bisexual women (n = 160, 1.8%), bisexual men (n = 68, 0.8%), heterosexual women (n = 3557, 40.1%) and heterosexual men (n = 4803, 54.1%). We used the same measures of satisfaction with relationships with parents and mental health (SF-36) as we did in part one of the chapter.

Results for Parenting Desires and Expectations

Figure 12.5 shows the probability of wanting to have children by gender and sexual orientation, controlling for age. The predicted probability of wanting to have a child was highest for heterosexual women (71%) and heterosexual men (66%), followed by lesbian women (51%), bisexual men (50%), and bisexual women (44%). In our sample, gay men were the least likely to report a desire to have children in the future (26%).

Fig. 12.5
A bar graph of mean women versus women who want to have a child. The x-axis represents the types of men and women, and the y-axis represents the probability of wanting to have a child ranging from 0 to 10.

Desire to have children among childless Australian adults 15–54 years.

Note: Predicted probability of wanting to have a child in the future based on logistic regression model with random effects, controlling for age. (Source: Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia Survey. Waves 12(2012) and 16(2016))

Full size image

We subsequently examined the predicted probability of expecting to have a child for those who reported wanting a child, looking across gender and sexual orientation and controlling for age. Results are displayed in Fig. 12.6 below. Among Australians with a desire to become a parent, gay men were the least likely to expect to fulfill those aspirations (60%), which is consistent with the international literature (see e.g., Riskind & Tornello, 2017). Meanwhile, heterosexual men, bisexual men and heterosexual women were the most likely to expect to fulfill their parenting aspirations (93% each). Most lesbian and bisexual women who wanted children also expected to have them in the future (85% and 86% respectively).

Fig. 12.6
A bar graph of mean women versus women who expect to have a child. The x-axis represents the types of men and women, and the y-axis represents the probability of expecting to have a child ranging from 0 to 10.

Expectation to have children among childless Australian adults 15–54 years with parenting desires.

Note: Predicted probability of expecting to have a child in the future among those who want to have one based on logistic regression model with random effects, controlling for age. (Source: Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia Survey. Waves 12(2012) and 16(2016))

Full size image

Results for the Role of Relationships with Own Parents

Next, we looked at the association between satisfaction with relationships with parents and parenting desires. We found that the more satisfied a person was with their relationships with their parents, the more likely they were to report wanting to have children in the future. The probability of wanting to have a child for those who were completely dissatisfied with their relationships with their parents was 46.1%, compared to 73.7% for those who were completely satisfied. This association was the same regardless of gender and sexual orientation. As such, a more positive relationship with parents was equally important for shaping the parenting desires of bisexual and heterosexual people as for lesbian and gay people.

We then examined associations between satisfaction with relationships with parents and parenting expectations among those who reported a desire to have children in the future. In this instance, we found that there was a significant interaction between gender and sexual orientation. Specifically, we found that a positive relationship with parents was substantially more important for shaping the parenting expectations of gay men than any of the other groups. For lesbian women, heterosexual men and women, and bisexual men and women, parenting expectations were high (>70%) regardless of how satisfied they were with their relationships with their parents. For gay men, however, when satisfaction with parents was low, parenting expectations were also low (10%). As satisfaction with parents increased parenting expectations increased, such that gay men who reported being completely satisfied with their relationships with parents had a high probability (>70%) of expecting to have children in the future. These findings are visualised in Fig. 12.7.

Fig. 12.7
A plot graph of the mean and median women's expectancy to have a child versus satisfaction with their relationship with their parents The x-axis represents satisfaction from 0 to 10, and the y-axis represents the probability of expecting a child ranging from 0 to 10.

Parenting expectations according to satisfaction with relationships with own parents among those with a desire to have children.

Note: Predicted probability of expecting to have a child in the future among those who want to have one based on logistic regression model with random effects, controlling for age. (Source: Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia Survey. Waves 12(2012) and 16(2016))

Full size image

Results for Associations Between Aspiration-Expectation Mismatches and Mental Health

In our final analysis for this chapter, we examined how the match between an individual’s parenting desires and expectations related to their mental health. We established earlier in the chapter that satisfaction with relationships with parents is associated with all of these variables. We therefore accounted for satisfaction with relationships with parents in our analysis to identify if thwarted parenting desires contributed to mental health disadvantage over and above less satisfactory relationships with parents. We found mental health differences according to the match/mismatch between parenting desires and expectations that were consistent across gender and sexual orientation groups. The highest levels of mental health were reported by people who both desired and expected to have children in the future (average predicted score of 73.5 out of 100), while the lowest levels of mental health were reported by people who desired but did not expect to have children in the future (average predicted score of 68.6 out of 100). The mental health of people without parenting desires fell in between (Fig. 12.8).

Fig. 12.8
A bar graph of mental health and desire for or expectations about having a child. The x-axis represents desires or expectations, and the y-axis represents mental health ranging from 63 to 75.

Mental health according to the match between parenting desires and expectations.

Note: Predicted mental health score based on logistic regression model with random effects, controlling for age and satisfaction with relationships with parents. (Source: Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia Survey. Waves 12(2012) and 16(2016))

Full size image

Summary of Findings from Part Two

In our second set of analyses for this chapter we have shown that childless LGB people in Australia are less likely to report a desire to have children in the future compared to their heterosexual counterparts, with gay men especially unlikely to report wanting children. Furthermore, gay men who do report wanting children are significantly less likely to expect to fulfill those aspirations than any other group. We found that this mismatch between desires and expectations is associated with diminished mental health compared to people who expect to fulfill their parenting desires. Last, we showed that disadvantageous family dynamics can accumulate across generations: people are less likely to express parenting desires the more dissatisfied they are with relationships with their own parents. In addition, gay men who wish to have a child are significantly less likely to expect to fulfill their desires the less satisfied they are with their relationships with their parents.

Discussion

In this chapter, we drew on the life course principles of trajectories, turning points, and linked lives to examine the role of family dynamics in producing disadvantage in the lives of LGB people in Australia. In part one, we presented new Australian evidence on the quality and significance of relationships between LGB people and their parents across the life course, adding to findings reported in earlier chapters on parental engagement in education (Chap. 6) and parental support during emerging adulthood (Chap. 8) for broader populations. Prior research has focused almost exclusively on adolescence, which is justified: adolescence is a critical time for the development of important attributes and life skills, and it is when trajectories in education, employment, health, wealth and family begin to take shape. Furthermore, it is when most LGB people begin disclosing their non-heterosexuality to others. Thus, both the risks and consequences of parental rejection are especially acute during this life stage. However, by ignoring the rest of the life course, we are missing important pieces of the puzzle (Reczek, 2020). We need to better understand when disparities in the parent-child relationship emerge, how they track over time, and their role in producing disadvantage at different stages of the life course. The findings we have presented here constitute some initial steps in that direction.

The good news is that, at all ages, the majority of LGB people in Australia report a positive relationship with their parents. The observed differences between the LGB and heterosexual groups were modest, which is consistent with recent international literature (Fischer & Kalmijn, 2021; Hank & Salzburger, 2015). It is also consistent with documented increases in the proportions of LGB youth in Australia who disclose their sexuality to and receive support from their parents (Hillier et al., 2010). As Australian society has become less heterosexist and homophobic, parents are less likely to reject their LGB children. In our view, this is a powerful example of how changing social structures can change people’s lives.

Despite this progress, a minority of LGB people still experience negative relationships with their parents. These disparities emerged early, with a turning point evident at age 11, and they persisted across the life course. We must therefore view childhood as a critical time for intervention if we are to prevent these disadvantageous family dynamics from developing. We agree with the conclusions of other Australian scholars in this field that parents must be provided with both education and support as children approach adolescence, so that they are prepared in the event that their child discloses a non-heterosexual orientation (Hillier et al., 2010). This could be done through the inclusion of information on sexuality diversity in mainstream material on adolescent health that parents are likely to access, as well as dedicated education programs for both parents and children. Most sexuality and relationship education provided in schools fails to meet the needs of LGB youth (Hillier et al., 2010; Robinson et al., 2014). Improving these programs and expanding their scope so that they reach parents, too, should be a priority for policymakers.

As we looked further into the life course, what we saw was arguably a story of resilience. While average satisfaction with the parent-child relationship remained fairly constant for LGB people across adulthood, the mental health impacts of feeling dissatisfied with this relationship declined with age. This is consistent with the accounts of LGB Australians who—with time, strength and effort—found ways to foster their wellbeing in the face of family rejection (Carastathis et al., 2017). They did this by drawing on friends, colleagues and other members of the LGB community—often referred to as “families of choice”—for the acceptance, emotional support and sense of belonging missing in their families of origin. In particular, connecting with other sexuality diverse people helped normalise their experiences and challenge any homophobic views that they had internalised, thereby growing their confidence, optimism and self-acceptance (Carastathis et al., 2017).

In the second part of this chapter, we presented new Australian evidence on parenting desires and expectations across gender and sexual orientation groups. Consistent with prior international evidence (e.g., Riskind & Tornello, 2017), we found that gay men and lesbian women were less likely to express parenting desires than heterosexual men and women. This is unsurprising given the unique barriers that lesbian and gay people face in their journey to become parents. It also aligns with qualitative Australian evidence indicating that some gay and lesbian people assume that their sexual identity is incompatible with becoming a parent and do not consider the possibility of having children as a result (Hayman et al., 2015; Murphy, 2013). Our findings support the view that heteronormative social structures that privilege heterosexuality (e.g., through legislation and the design and provision of family services) act to suppress parenting desires among some lesbian and gay people. The role of existing legislation in facilitating versus constraining access to parenthood—for instance, via adoption and surrogacy—should be revisited in light of our findings (see also Kazyak et al., 2018).

Interestingly, bisexual men and women were also less likely to express parenting desires than heterosexual men and women in our sample, a finding that diverges from recent US evidence (Riskind & Tornello, 2017). Given that bisexual people are much more likely to be partnered with a member of the other sex than the same sex, we anticipated that their expectations regarding parenthood would more closely resemble those of heterosexual people. However, one factor that we had not considered was relationship quality. Bisexual men and women, including those in other-sex couples, have been found to report significantly lower levels of relationship quality than heterosexual men and women (Perales & Baxter, 2018). A poor quality relationship with one’s partner may deter some bisexual people from pursuing parenthood, a proposition that future research should investigate.

The vast majority of people in our sample who wanted to have children in the future were confident of achieving their aspirations, with one exception: gay men. Gay men were more likely to report a mismatch between their parenting desires and expectations, with two-fifths of those who wanted to have children not expecting to become a parent in the future. Given the strong personal significance that parenthood holds, thwarted parenting desires are an important form of disadvantage in their own right. In addition, we found that they are associated with a significant penalty with regards to mental health. While statistically significant, this difference was arguably modest. However, meaningful disparities in mental health can result from the accumulation of multiple, small blows over time, and thwarted parenting desires are just one disadvantage that LGB people (in particular, gay men) are at risk of experiencing across the course of their lives.

Our analyses also shone light on how disadvantageous family dynamics in the lives of LGB people can accumulate over time. We established in part one of this chapter that, compared to heterosexual people, LGB people feel less close to and less supported by their parents across adolescence, and less satisfied with their relationships with their parents throughout adulthood. In part two of this chapter we found that the less satisfied people were with their relationships with their parents, the less likely they were to desire to have children of their own. Furthermore, gay men who did express parenting desires were substantially less likely to expect to fulfill those aspirations if satisfaction with their relationships with their own parents was low. We proposed that internalised homophobia, a more negative self-concept, higher expected stigma and lower expected social support could all be mechanisms underlying this association. This is something that future studies could examine.

The Way Forward

The analyses that we have presented in this chapter represent just the first steps towards developing a better understanding of how family dynamics accumulate and produce disadvantage in the lives of LGB Australians. They provide a broad, descriptive view—albeit with the advantage of coming from large, nationally representative samples—and further research is needed to build on the foundations we have laid here. One fruitful avenue for further inquiry would be to examine individual (as opposed to average) life course trajectories of parent support and mental health among LGB people, to identify factors that promote resilience versus vulnerability. Further empirical attention could also be directed towards important transitions in the lives of LGB people, and how this effects their relationships with their parents. For example, preliminary research suggests that getting married or becoming a parent can bring some LGB people closer to their parents (Power et al., 2012; Reczek, 2020). In addition, the role of relationships between LGB people and other family members, such as grandparents and siblings (see Perales & Plage, 2020), in shaping outcomes remains something of a blind spot in this literature. Most crucially, we must ascertain how experiences of parental and family rejection during childhood and adolescence impact LGB youth’s transitions into adulthood and their trajectories in other life domains (e.g., education, employment). There may always be a small proportion of LGB people who are rejected by their families. Having a solid grasp of how this impacts individual lives is the first step towards creating effective policy interventions to remedy disadvantage.

Conclusion

In this chapter, we have demonstrated that LGB people are disadvantaged not only by the actions of strangers who exclude them through inequitable legislation, make angry phone calls to talk back radio, or glare at them as they walk down the street, but also through the actions of their own parents. This is a clear example of the life course principle of linked lives in action: social structures have the power to shape our most important, personal relationships and, through these, our mental health and wellbeing. If we are to achieve equality of outcomes irrespective of sexual orientation, we must not only support and educate parents, but continue to challenge and dismantle the heteronormative social structures that produce this disadvantage in the first place.