About this paper symposium

---

Panel information
Panel 19. Sex, Gender

Paper #1
Why Do Adolescents Harass Gender Non-Conforming Peers?
Author information	Role
Dr. Matthew Nielson, University of Exeter, United Kingdom	Presenting author
Adam A. Rogers, Brigham Young University, United States	Non-presenting author
Rachel E. Cook, Unversity of California Santa Barbara, United States	Non-presenting author
Abstract
Introduction: Experiencing and perpetrating harassment based on sexual orientation and gender identity/expression (SOGIE) is a common experience for sexual minority adolescents in the US (Brown et al., 2023). Additionally, boys are more likely than girls to harass peers based on SOGIE characteristics: 76% of boys harass girls and 85% of boys harass boys (Brown et al., 2023). Why is this the case? What motivates adolescents to harass their peers because of SOGIE characteristics? The current project explores the following questions: 1) what assumptions do adolescents make about gender non-conforming (GNC) peers compared to gender conforming (GC) peers? Do these patterns vary by gender? And do these assumptions connect to a reactionary behavior (e.g., avoiding interactions, teasing)? Study Population: The online sample was 539 US adolescents (49% girls, 50% boys, <1% trans or other) ranging from 14 to 17 years (Mage=15.10, SDage=1.10) from across the US with relatively diverse ethnic-racial identities (61% White, 30% African-American, 20% Hispanic/Latinx, 3% Asian- American, 3% American Indian or Alaska Native, 1% Other). Results: To address RQ1 and RQ2, we used a 2 (responder gender: girl, boy) by 4 (type of peer: GC girl, GC boy, GNC girl, GNC boy) between-persons MANOVA with Bonferroni corrections to compare across 13 different potential assumptions (e.g., this person is weird) that adolescents might make about their peers. There were several significant interactions (F(13, 503) = 11.91, p > .001) and main effects, particularly for type of peer (F(13, 503) = 27.12, p > .001). The most common pattern was that the assumptions were strongest for GNC boys. GNC boys were perceived as gayer (ps < .001, ds > .24), weirder (ps < .001, ds > .08), and less popular (ps < .001, ds > .19) than other peers (see Figure 1). There were surprising trends including that adolescents were not worried that GNC peers would provide unwanted romantic behaviors (ps > .67, ds < .09), or that they would harm one’s social status (ps > .77, ds < .03). To address RQ3, we conducted a similar MANOVA as before, but the outcomes were 12 reactionary behaviors. There were several significant interactions (F(11, 505) = 2.98, p > .001) and main effects for type of peer (F(11, 505) = 5.38, p > .001) that revealed patterns that boys were more likely to react negatively to GNC boys (e.g., less comfortable interacting with; ps < .001, ds > .31). Conclusion: In summary, our study indicates that adolescents reacted negatively to their gender non-conforming peers, particularly boys, because gender non-conformity is considered weird, less socially acceptable, and connected to same-gender attraction. With this finding we gain deeper insight into the current functioning of homonegativity. Even as adolescents are becoming more accepting of sexual minorities and less tolerant of overt homonegativity, they are still very concerned about being perceived as gay and remain intolerant of gender non-conformity as a result.

Paper #2
Navigating Digital Stigma: How Transgender and Gender Diverse Young Adults Respond to Stigma Online
Author information	Role
Emily Herry, Ohio State University, United States	Presenting author
Robert Marx, San Jose State University, United States	Non-presenting author
Kelly Lynn Mulvey, North Carolina State University, United States	Non-presenting author
Abstract
Introduction: Transgender and gender diverse (TGD) young adults face significant stigma, which negatively impacts their mental health and development (Dyar et al., 2024; Herry et al., 2024). Although scholarship historically focused on offline stigma (Barbee et al., 2022; Drabish & Theeke, 2022), research is increasingly attending to stigma within digital contexts (Hughto et al., 2021). Understanding online stigma is crucial because online spaces, which are often anonymous and unregulated, can exacerbate victimization (Moore et al., 2012). However, less attention has been given to how TGD young adults respond to online stigma. This study addresses this gap by exploring the types of stigma TGD young adults encounter online and how they respond to these experiences. Study Population: Participants were recruited through snowball sampling and LGBTQ+ online groups. The analytic sample of TGD young adults (n = 13; Mage = 26.77; SD = 3.81; Range = 22–34) were all White. 38.5% identifying as nonbinary/genderqueer, 15.40% transmasculine, 30.80% transgender men, and 15.4% transgender women. Methods: We partnered with a community advisory board of TGD psychologists, community advocates, and students to design the interview protocol. The semi-structured interviews, guided by Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (Smith & Shinebourne, 2012), examined participants’ experiences with and responses to stigma online. Results: All participants reported encountering negative online messages about TGD people, with most indicating that these experiences occurred regularly. Experiences were categorized into four subthemes: harmful narratives, political messaging, harassment, and misgendering. Participants frequently encountered anti-trans content, often framed through stereotypes and political messaging. Harassment and hate speech were also prevalent, with participants describing both overt and subtle forms of stigma. For example, Quinn, a nonbinary participant, described witnessing hate speech on Twitter, where transphobic content can be widespread. Other participants shared similar incidents, experiencing, and witnessing microaggressions and extreme forms of harassment, such as doxing. Participants also described how they responded to these experiences, with responses categorized into three subthemes: passive responses to protect themselves, active responses to protect themselves, and active responses to protect others. In response to TGD stigma, participants chose passive responses to avoid further emotional harm or reduce exposure to hostility (e.g., blocking, ignoring). At other times, participants chose active responses to create a more inclusive environment for themselves and others, or to challenge harmful narratives about TGD people (e.g., confronting the transgressors, offering support to other TGD people experiencing stigma, attempting to educate people who are misinformed about TGD issues). Responses reflected a balance between self-care, community care, and the challenges of navigating complex online environments. Conclusion: This study highlights the prevalence of online stigma experienced by TGD young adults, who face regular exposure to harmful content, harassment, and misgendering. Their responses—whether passive or active—underscore the complexity of navigating digital spaces as TGD individuals. Future research should continue to examine the experiences of TGD young people online and their responses to stigma. Future research, policies, and interventions should also consider how we might create safe and supportive online spaces and address the harmful impacts of TGD stigma online.

Paper #3
Understanding Teachers’ Intention to Intervene with Transphobic Bullying in a National Sample of Canadian Teachers
Author information	Role
Y-Lane Noémie Zaine, Université de Sherbrooke, Canada	Presenting author
Alexa Martin-Storey, Université de Sherbrooke, Canada	Non-presenting author
Melanie Dirks, McGill University, Canada	Non-presenting author
Deineira Exner-Cortens, University of Calgary, Canada	Non-presenting author
Brett Holfeld, Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada	Non-presenting author
Wendy Craig, Queen's University, Canada	Non-presenting author
Abstract
Gender diverse and transgender youth face higher rates of peer victimization and adverse outcomes such as anxiety, depression, and suicidal thoughts compared to their cisgender peers (Greytak et al., 2016; Kosciw et al., 2020). They are also more likely to report their school environments as unwelcoming or unsafe due to unsupportive individuals and policies when compared to their cisgender peers (Day & Russell, 2018; Poteat et al., 2017). Teachers play a crucial role in shaping school climate (Garnett et al., 2014; Poteat & Vecho, 2015; Wernick et al., 2014), making them an important group for addressing and preventing transphobic victimization. Research indicates that teachers’ personal beliefs and attitudes regarding gender and identity can significantly impact whether and how teachers intervene in cases of gender and identity-based victimization (Greytak & Kosciw, 2014), but a gap remains regarding what factors make teachers feel competent to address different forms of transphobic bullying. Research Question and Hypotheses: This study examined how structural factors (e.g., teachers’ satisfaction with their school’s response to transphobic bullying, their perception of transphobic bullying as a problem, and perceived barriers to intervention) and individual factors (e.g., attitudes toward transgender individuals and moral disengagement from gender-based violence) were associated with teachers’ intention to intervene when witnessing transphobic victimization. We hypothesized that higher satisfaction with school response, higher perception of transphobic bullying as a problem, and greater knowledge about transgender issues would be associated with heightened likelihood of intervening. Conversely, higher moral disengagement and more perceived barriers to intervention were expected to be associated with a lower intention to intervene. Study Population and Methods: This research employed data from a large-scale survey, focusing on 579 teachers recruited from across Canada. A linear regression was conducted using SPSS to examine the mean score of teachers’ intention to intervene when witnessing transphobic jokes or insults made (a) by students in general; (b) by students towards gender minority students; (c) by coworkers in general; and (d) by coworkers towards gender minority students. These analyses were performed controlling teacher’s age. Results: A multiple linear regression analysis revealed that, after controlling for age, greater satisfaction with school responses to transphobic bullying (β = .08, p < 0.05) and higher levels of transgender-related knowledge and acceptance (β = .30, p < 0.01) were significantly associated with a greater intention to intervene. Additionally, lower moral disengagement regarding gender-based violence was significantly associated with a lower likelihood of intervention (β = -0.24, p < 0.01). However, the perception of transphobic bullying as a problem and perceived barriers to intervention were not associated with intention to intervene. Conclusion: These findings underscore the necessity to inform teachers about issues regarding gender diversity, and to counter transphobic attitudes and beliefs within both initial teacher training and ongoing professional development programs. Improving or implementing supportive policies aligned with teachers’ needs may improve their ability to address transphobic victimization effectively. By fostering inclusive attitudes and collective responsibility to address discriminatory behaviors, educators can provide better support and protection for all students, especially those who are transgender or gender diverse.

Paper #4
What are the Factors that Help Adolescents Who are Bullied Thrive?
Author information	Role
André Gonzales Real, University of Texas at Austin, United States	Presenting author
Marla E. Eisenberg, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, United States	Non-presenting author
Hana-Mat Eadeh, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, United States	Non-presenting author
G. Nic Rider, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, United States	Non-presenting author
Amy L. Gower, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, United States	Non-presenting author
J. J. Koechell, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, United States	Non-presenting author
Stephen T. Russell, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, United States	Non-presenting author
Abstract
Introduction: Adolescents who are bullied are at greater risk for poor educational and behavioral well-being, including low grades, poor mental health and high substance use. While studies largely focus on risk factors for poorer well-being among adolescents, fewer examine protective factors, particularly among those who are most vulnerable for negative outcomes. We address this gap by examining sources of support that may be associated with greater well-being among adolescents who are bullied. Considering that different forms of bullying may have different associations with well-being outcomes, we also tested if the associations between sources of support and well-being outcomes varied across individuals who had different experiences of bullying. Study Population and Methods: Data were drawn from a subset of California Healthy Kids Survey (collected between 2017-2019. We restrict our analysis to participants who responded to the resilience and youth development module and experienced bullying based on gender, race, or sexual orientation in the past 12 months. Participants included 8,310 adolescents (6th-12th grades) who were bullied about specific identities in the past 12 months, of which 12.6% experienced gender-based bullying, 41.4% experienced race-based bullying, 16.2% experienced sexual orientation-based bullying, and 29.8% experienced multiple forms of bullying. Multiple group analysis stratified by the type of bullying experience (i.e., gender-, race-, sexual orientation-based, or experienced more than one of these forms of bullying) examined whether home (6 items, e.g., “In my home, there is an adult who believes I will be a success”), school (6 items; e.g., “Teachers go out of their way to help students”), peer (3 items; e.g., “I have a friend about my own age who really cares about me”, or community support (6 items; e.g., “Outside of my home and school, there is an adult whom I trust”) were associated with better educational and behavioral well-being (i.e., grades, past month substance use, resilience, and psychological distress). Next, chi-square difference tests examined whether there were significant differences across groups (i.e., moderation effects) in the associations between the types of support and well-being. Results: Results indicated that home and school support had the strongest associations with all measures of well-being. Specifically, home and school support was associated with higher grades, less substance use, higher resilience, and less psychological distress for the full sample. Peer and community support were associated with less psychological distress; and higher resilience. While the multiple group analysis revealed that these effects were generally similar across groups, there were differences in the associations between support and substance use across groups. Different than the groups that experienced only one form of bullying, all forms of support were associated with less substance use for those who experienced multiple forms of bullying. Conclusion: Although all forms of support seem to benefit adolescents in different ways, in line with the previous literature, our findings indicate that home and school support are particularly important for multiple dimensions of well-being for adolescents who are at risk for poor outcomes. Importantly, these sources of support were particularly protective against substance use for adolescents who experienced multiple forms of bullying.

⇦ Back to session