Times are displayed in (UTC-05:00) Central Time (US & Canada) Change
About this paper symposium
| Panel information |
|---|
| Panel 19. Sex, Gender |
| Paper #1 | |
|---|---|
| Intersectional Examination of Outness among European Sexual Minority Youth: An ECHAID Approach | |
| Author information | Role |
| S. Henry Sherwood, PhD, Department of Human Development and Family Sciences, University of Texas at Austin, United States | Presenting author |
| Haoran Meng, Department of Human Development and Family Sciences, University of Texas at Austin, United States | Non-presenting author |
| Stephen T. Russell, PhD, Department of Human Development and Family Sciences, University of Texas at Austin, United States | Non-presenting author |
| Salvatore Ioverno, PhD, Department of Education Science, Università Degli Studi Roma Tre, Italy | Non-presenting author |
| Abstract | |
|
Being out for LGBTQ+ adolescents can be associated with positive outcomes in education yet educational disparities persist for youth who are out. This work employs an intersectional approach to examine outness to school peers (i.e., the degree to which individuals have disclosed their sexual minority identity) among sexual minority youth (SMY) using exhaustive chi-square automatic interaction detection (i.e., ECHAID) to understand the intersecting social positions and environmental circumstances associated with sexual identity outness. ECHAID is a decision tree approach recommended for quantitative intersectionality research. Data include 15,933 SMY collected in 2020/2021. At the time of survey completion, all youth attended secondary school and resided in one of 13 European countries: Austria, Belgium, Croatia, France, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, and the UK. On average, youth were 16 years old (M = 15.99; SD = 1.34), primarily identified as bisexual (n = 7,976; 33.89%) and cisgender girls (n = 18,309; 77.79%). Most of the sample resided in Italy and Spain (n = 3,771 and n = 3,762 respectively). School outness was assessed by asking participants how many of their classmates and students outside of their class knew they are LGBTQ+ (none to all). School climate is a scale that includes perceptions of school safety, peer support, and teacher support. The mean for school climate was calculated from the standardized z-scores of these three variables (high, medium, low). Additional variables include country of residence, immigration status (yes/no), age (14/15, 16/17, 18/19), gender identity (cisgender boy, cisgender girl), and sexual orientation (gay/lesbian, bisexual, questioning, other). The average prevalence of outness to classmates and students outside of their class were 78% and 62.5%, respectively. When only examining demographic variables, country of residence was the greatest determining factor associated with outness for SMY (Table 1a). Youth who reported the highest outness to classmates lived in Austria, Italy, or Portugal and identified as gay, lesbian, or questioning regardless of immigration status, age, or gender identity. Youth who reported the highest outness to students lived in Belgium, France, or the UK regardless of immigration status, age, gender identity, or sexual orientation. When school climate was included (Table 2a), the strongest determining factor for outness among classmates was school climate, followed by country of residence. Youth who reported the highest outness to classmates reported a positive school climate, lived in Austria, Portugal, or the UK, were between 14 and 17 years old, and identified as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or other regardless of immigration status or gender identity. The strongest determining factor related to outness among students was country of residence, followed by school climate. Those who reported the highest outness to students lived in Belgium, France, and the UK, reported a positive school climate, and were between 14 and 17 years old regardless of immigration status, gender identity, or sexual orientation. Continued work examining the intersecting social positions and environmental circumstances associated with LGBTQ+ outness will allow education stakeholders to better serve youth who are out. |
|
| Paper #2 | |
|---|---|
| Sexual and Gender Identity Development Timing: Latent Profiles among Transgender and Gender Diverse Adolescents | |
| Author information | Role |
| M. D. Bishop, PhD, Department of Family Sciences, University of Maryland College Park, United States | Presenting author |
| Eric K. Layland, PhD, Department of Human Development and Family Sciences, University of Delaware, United States | Non-presenting author |
| Ryan J. Watson, PhD, Department of Human Development and Family Sciences, University of Connecticut, United States | Non-presenting author |
| Jessica N. Fish, PhD, Department of Family Sciences and Behavioral and Community Health, University of Maryland College Park, United States | Non-presenting author |
| Abstract | |
|
Background: A growing literature establishes health-relevant variability in the developmental timing of sexual minority (SM) youth’s sexual identity developmental milestones, such as realizing and disclosing a SM identity (Bishop et al., 2024). More recently, scholars began to document the developmental timing of gender minority (GM) youths’ realization and disclosure of GM identities (Puckett et al., 2024). Although most GM youth also hold SM identities (Dawson et al., 2023), no studies have quantitatively examined GM youth’s SM and GM milestones in tandem. Empirically and theoretically siloing these identity-based processes precludes understandings of whether such processes are mutually constitutive. Further, person-centered approaches can uncover health-relevant patterns of milestone timing, ordering, and pacing. The current study’s aims were to describe latent patterns of SM and GM identity developmental milestones among a large U.S. national sample of GM adolescents and to explore sociodemographic differences across these patterns. Sample & Methods: The analytic sample are GM (i.e., non-cisgender) youth ages 13-18 who participated in the 2022 LGBTQ National Teen Survey (n=10,301). Sexual and gender minority developmental milestones were measured with four items that documented the ages at which participants first realized and disclosed both SM and GM identities, respectively. Covariates included gender modality (binary transgender or non-binary transgender) and race (underrepresented racial identity [URI] or non-URI). We conducted a latent profile analysis in MPlus to describe patterning of SM and GM milestone timing. We used a 3-step VAM approach (Vermunt, 2010) to explore demographic predictors of profile membership. Results & Discussion: Classification diagnostics and relative fit indices (e.g., AIC, BIC, aBIC) suggested that a 3-profile non-diagonal, invariant model best fit the data (Figure 1b). The born this way profile (n=117; 1.2%) comprised youth who reported GM milestones in toddlerhood followed by SM milestones during late childhood. The childhood realization adolescent disclosure (n=898; 8.8%) profile reported SM and GM realization in childhood followed by both SM and GM disclosure in adolescence. Finally, the adolescent development profile (n= 9155; 90%) reported milestones during adolescence, with SM milestones preceding GM milestones. Regarding sociodemographic differences in profile membership (Table 1b), binary transgender youth were significantly more likely to be in the born this way profile than the adolescent development profile when compared to non-binary transgender youth (OR=2.76 [2.37, 3.21]). Binary transgender youth were also significantly more likely to be in the childhood realization adolescent disclosure profile than the adolescent development profile compared to non-binary transgender youth (OR=1.70 [1.15, 2.51]). Relative to URI youth, non-URI youth were significantly less likely to be in the born this way profile than the adolescent development profile (OR=0.77 [0.65, 0.90]), and were significantly less likely to be in the childhood realization adolescent disclosure profile than the adolescent development profile (OR=0.52 [0.35, 0.77]). Results suggest diverse patterns in the timing, pacing, and sequencing of GM youth’s milestones that do not map onto a global theory of gender minority youth’s identity development. Rather, diverse emergent patterns suggest the need for multiple perspectives of GM youth identity development that incorporate intersectional, social constructionist, and queer perspectives. |
|
| Paper #3 | |
|---|---|
| Timing and Pacing of Gender Identity Self-Affirmation Milestones and Associations with Positive Parental Messaging | |
| Author information | Role |
| August X. Wei, Department of Human Development and Family Sciences, University of Delaware, United States | Presenting author |
| Ilana Seager van Dyk, PhD, School of Psychology, Massey University, New Zealand | Non-presenting author |
| Eric K. Layland, PhD, Department of Human Development and Family Sciences, University of Delaware, United States | Non-presenting author |
| Abstract | |
|
A strengths-based perspective on gender identity developmental milestones reframes transgender and nonbinary (TNB) development to include a self-affirmation process that extends from feeling different to later embracing identity. Because milestones increasingly occur in childhood (Puckett et al., 2022), understanding how parents can facilitate positive milestones is critical to supporting TNB youth (Campbell et al., 2024). Therefore, we investigated (1) timing (i.e., age) and pacing (i.e., time between milestones) of self-affirmation milestones and (2) the association between positive parental messaging about LGBTQIA+ identity and milestone timing and pacing. We expected timing and pacing to differ among generational cohorts. Using the US/New Zealand (NZ) Queer Joy Survey (2023-2024), the TNB subsample (n=311) was majority White (63.5% US; 78.2% NZ), followed by multiracial (12.8% US; 16.1% NZ). Participants' ages ranged from 16 to 71 (M=26.7). Participants reported 1) age of feeling different from others based on their gender identity, 2) age of embracing or feeling at home in their gender identity, and 3) frequency of positive messages from parents about being an LGBTQIA+ person while they were growing up. Age of feeling different was subtracted from age of embracing identity to approximate the pacing of gender identity self-affirmation. After describing mean milestone timing and pacing, an ANOVA compared generational cohort differences in milestones. Linear regression tested associations between frequency of positive parental messages and timing and pacing of milestones, adjusting for generational cohort (e.g., Gen Z, Millennial, Gen X+). Table 1c summarizes average self-affirmation milestone timing and pacing. Generational cohorts differed in age of embracing identity and self-affirmation pacing, but not age of feeling different. Gen Z (M=19.6) and Millennials (M=27.6) embraced identity earlier than Gen X+ (M=40.1). Gen Z’s self-affirmation pacing was 8.1 years, which was quicker compared to Millennial (M=16.5) and Gen X+ (M=21.5). Positive parental messaging was not associated with feeling different or embracing identity. However, positive parental messaging was associated with self-affirmation pacing (b=-1.11, p=.03), wherein time between milestones was one year less for each increased unit of positive parental messaging (Table 2c). This is the first study to utilize a strengths-based perspective to conceptualize and provide evidence of self-affirmation as a positive developmental process for transgender individuals. By demonstrating age of embracing identity is occurring earlier in younger cohorts, results aligned with existing cross-generational milestone research. However, the lack of cohort differences in age of feeling different demonstrates some developmental timing has remained stable. While parents' positive messaging was not linked to milestone timing, positive parenting may provide an environment for transgender youth to experience gender identity self-affirmation. Altogether, results position self-affirmation milestones across the lifespan, beginning in childhood, and suggest positive parental LGBTQIA+ socialization may influence pace of self-affirmation. Future research should disentangle cohort and age influences on milestone timing and pacing. |
|
| Paper #4 | |
|---|---|
| Sexual and Gender Identity Socialization from Parents, Schools, and Peers and Timing of Developmental Milestones | |
| Author information | Role |
| Eric K. Layland, PhD, Department of Human Development and Family Sciences, University of Delaware, United States | Presenting author |
| M. D. Bishop, PhD, Department of Family Sciences, University of Maryland College Park, United States | Non-presenting author |
| Connor Carey, MSW, Brown School of Social Work, University of Washington St. Louis, United States | Non-presenting author |
| Ryan J. Watson, PhD, Department of Human Development and Family Sciences, University of Connecticut, United States | Non-presenting author |
| Abstract | |
|
Sexual and gender minority (SGM) identity milestones (e.g., realizing SGM identity, identity disclosure) are increasingly common in childhood and adolescence with recent research showing the average age of milestones today are younger (Bishop et al., 2024) and time between milestones is shorter (Layland et al., 2023) than in prior generations. As a social developmental process through which SGM youth develop a shared understanding of their SGM identities, SGM socialization may play a key role in SGM developmental timing. Theories of SGM adolescent development suggest socialization to SGM community and culture may support positive development and stronger sense of self (Fish & Ezra, 2023) and that family, schools, and peers, are critical developmental domains (Goldbach & Gibbs, 2017). Therefore, we investigated associations of SGM socialization through parents, schools, and peers with timing of SGM identity milestones. Data from the 2022 LGBTQ National Teen Survey (n=8,182; 73% white) included SGM adolescents (69% transgender/nonbinary) ages 13 to 18 (M=15.9). SGM socialization measures reflected dimensions of parents (having an SGM parent; parental acceptance), teachers (number of SGM teachers; any SGM curriculum), and peers (number of SGM close friends). SGM developmental milestones included age of realization of sexual/gender identity and age of disclosure of sexual/gender identity. Milestone pacing was the time between realization and disclosure. Timing and pacing of milestones were regressed onto the five measures of SGM socialization, adjusting for age and cisgender status, in separate models for sexual and gender identity milestones. Table 1d summarizes average milestone timing and pacing. For sexual identity (Table 2d Model 1), having an SGM parent and parental acceptance were associated with younger ages of both sexual identity realization and disclosure. Having any SGM curriculum, but not number of SGM teachers, was associated with later age of sexual identity realization. Having more SGM close friends was associated with earlier milestones and was the most consistent predictor of milestone pacing. For gender identity (Table 2d Model 2), having an SGM parent was associated with earlier realization, parental acceptance was associated with earlier realization and disclosure, and having more SGM friends was associated with later disclosure. School dimensions were not associated with gender identity milestones. Overall, socialization dimensions explained more variance in disclosure age than in realization or pacing. By considering SGM socialization during childhood and adolescence, results revealed the impact of exposure to socialization from SGM others, especially parents and peers, on SGM identity development. These SGM social connections may support development by patterning and cultivating SGM development earlier in childhood and adolescence. Time between milestones was largely unassociated with socialization dimensions, suggesting that even when milestones are facilitated earlier in development, milestone pacing may be unaffected. Null findings in gender identity analyses resist the anti-trans rhetoric of social contagion by finding no associations of number of SGM friends nor SGM curriculum with age of realizing gender identity. Altogether, results situate SGM identity development in early adolescence and suggest exposure to positive SGM socialization may provide a social context wherein these milestones are supported to occur in childhood. |
|
⇦ Back to session
Promoting Positive LGBTQ+ Adolescent Development: Understanding Psychosocial Correlates of Sexual and Gender Identity Developmental Milestones
Submission Type
Paper Symposium
Description
| Session Title | Promoting Positive LGBTQ+ Adolescent Development: Understanding Psychosocial Correlates of Sexual and Gender Identity Developmental Milestones |