Mapping the Landscape of Support and Safety Among Sexual Minority Women and Gender Non-conforming Individuals: Perceptions After the 2016 US Presidential Election
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.
KeywordsSexual minority women Gender non-conforming Transgender Election Social climate Geographic location
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.
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 was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) (2018). Past LGBT nondiscrimination and anti-LGBT bills across the country Retrieved February 24, 2018.Google Scholar
- Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.Google Scholar
- 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
- Cresswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
- Elazar, D. (1972). American federalism: A view from the states (2nd ed.). New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Gallup (2017). Gay and Lesbian Rights Retrieved February 24, 2018, from http://www.gallup.com/poll/1651/gay-lesbian-rights.aspx.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Hatzenbuehler, M. L., & Link, B. (2014). Introduction to the special issues on structural stigma and health. Social Science & Medicine, 103, 1–6.Google Scholar
- 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.
- 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
- 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
- Movement Advancement Project. (2015). Mapping LGBT equality in America. Denver, CO. Retrieved from www.lgbtmap.org.
- National Bullying Prevention Center (2017). Bullying statistics Retrieved April 28, 2018, from http://www.pacer.org/bullying/resources/stats.asp.
- 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
- 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
- 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/.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- U.S. Department of Justice (2016). 2016 Hate crime statistics. Retrieved from https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2016.
- 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
- 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
- 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.