Associations Between Childhood Victimization, Adult Victimization, and Physical Health Among Sexually Diverse Adults at Different Stages of Life.

Purpose: Research examining health disparities in sexually diverse populations is quite variable. The purpose of the present article was to shed light on the conflicting findings pertaining to minority stress and health by examining the potential impact of age, childhood victimization, and different measurements of health. Methods: The present research used data from the Generations Study, a questionnaire study of sexually diverse adults (ages 18-60) surveyed between 2016 and 2019. We modeled direct and indirect links among (1) childhood exposure to physical or sexual abuse, (2) adult exposure to victimization or harassment, and (3) adult physical health status, assessed both subjectively and objectively. Participants were 1398 sexually diverse adults (e.g., lesbian, gay, bisexual); the present work only utilizes wave one of the data collected in 2016. Results: We found that both childhood abuse and adult harassment/victimization predicted sexually diverse adults' health status, but these associations only manifested as diagnosable disease outcomes among adults over 50. Associations between childhood abuse and adult health were partly attributable to the fact that abuse-exposed children were disproportionately exposed to harassment and victimization as adults. Conclusion: Our research makes a novel contribution to our understanding of the health effects of stigma by pinpointing the multiple, cascading pathways through which adversity relates to health.

Rethinking minority stress: A social safety perspective on the health effects of stigma in sexually-diverse and gender-diverse populations.

For over two decades, the minority stress model has guided research on the health of sexually-diverse individuals (those who are not exclusively heterosexual) and gender-diverse individuals (those whose gender identity/expression differs from their birth-assigned sex/gender). According to this model, the cumulative stress caused by stigma and social marginalization fosters stress-related health problems. Yet studies linking minority stress to physical health outcomes have yielded mixed results, suggesting that something is missing from our understanding of stigma and health. Social safety may be the missing piece. Social safety refers to reliable social connection, inclusion, and protection, which are core human needs that are imperiled by stigma. The absence of social safety is just as health-consequential for stigmatized individuals as the presence of minority stress, because the chronic threat-vigilance fostered by insufficient safety has negative long-term effects on cognitive, emotional, and immunological functioning, even when exposure to minority stress is low. We argue that insufficient social safety is a primary cause of stigma-related health disparities and a key target for intervention.

Systemic inflammation as a driver of health disparities among sexually-diverse and gender-diverse individuals.

Sexually-diverse individuals (those who seek sexual or romantic relationships with the same and/or multiple genders) and gender-diverse individuals (those whose gender identity and/or expression differs from their birth-assigned sex/gender) have disproportionately high physical health problems, but the underlying biological causes for these health disparities remain unclear. Building on the minority stress model linking social stigmatization to health outcomes, we argue that systemic inflammation (the body's primary response to both physical and psychological threats, indicated by inflammatory markers such as C-reactive protein and proinflammatory cytokines) is a primary biobehavioral pathway linking sexual and gender stigma to physical health outcomes. Expectations and experiences of social threat (i.e., rejection, shame, and isolation) are widespread and chronic among sexually-diverse and gender-diverse individuals, and social threats are particularly potent drivers of inflammation. We review research suggesting that framing "minority stress" in terms of social safety versus threat, and attending specifically to the inflammatory consequences of these experiences, can advance our understanding of the biobehavioral consequences of sexual and gender stigma and can promote the development of health promoting interventions for this population.