Sex, status, competition, and exclusion: Intraminority stress from within the gay community and gay and bisexual men's mental health.

Gay and bisexual men might face unique, status-based competitive pressures given that their social and sexual relationships often occur with other men, who are known to compete for social and sexual gain. In a multistage study, we delineated intraminority gay community stress theory-that status-focused elements of the gay community challenge the mental health of gay and bisexual men. We first created a measure of gay community stress with items derived from qualitative interviewing (n = 49); calculated its psychometric properties, including 1-year temporal stability (n = 937); and confirmed its structural stability in distinct samples (n = 96; n = 1,413). Being stressed by perceiving the gay community's focus on sex, focus on status, focus on competition, and exclusion of diversity predicted gay and bisexual men's mental health over-and-above a comprehensive battery of traditional minority stressors (ß = .17, p < .01) and mediated the association between one's gay community status and mental health. To examine the impact of individual differences in status concerns (i.e., about masculinity, attractiveness, and wealth) on gay and bisexual men's feelings of within-community exclusion, a series of experiments manipulated (a) the sexual orientation (gay vs. heterosexual) of rejecters (n = 103), (b) the social status of gay rejecters (n = 83), and (c) whether rejection from gay and bisexual rejecters was status-based or nonstatus-based (n = 252). Overall, these experiments provide partial support for the possibility that gay and bisexual men's status concerns underlie their experience of gay community stress. Together, these studies advance psychological and sociological accounts of gay and bisexual men's mental health beyond minority stress theory, with implications for intervention. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

A multisite, longitudinal study of risk factors for incarceration and impact on mental health and substance use among young transgender women in the USA.

BACKGROUND: Transgender women are disproportionately incarcerated in the US relative to the general population. A dearth of research has explored the factors that predict incarceration among transgender women or the longitudinal impact of incarceration on the health of this population. METHODS: Between 2012 and 2015, 221 transgender women ages 16-29 from Boston, MA and Chicago, IL were prospectively assessed at baseline, 4, 8 and 12 months. Mixed effects models were used to identify risk factors for incarceration and examine whether incarceration predicts somatic, anxiety and depressive symptoms, illicit drug use, and binge drinking over time, controlling for baseline psychiatric and substance use disorders. RESULTS: Overall, 38% experienced incarceration, before (33%) and during (18%) the study period. Significant independent predictors of recent incarceration included sex work, recent homelessness, school dropout and number of times incarcerated prior to enrollment while recent incarceration significantly predicted somatic symptoms and illicit drug use over time. CONCLUSIONS: Incarceration burden is high in young transgender women. Both structural and individual risk factors predict incarceration and poor health, suggesting the need for multilevel interventions to prevent incarceration and support young transgender women during incarceration and upon release.

LifeSkills for Men (LS4M): Pilot Evaluation of a Gender-Affirmative HIV and STI Prevention Intervention for Young Adult Transgender Men Who Have Sex with Men.

Young adult transgender men who have sex with men (TMSM) engage in sexual behaviors that place them at risk of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) including HIV. To date, no HIV and STI prevention interventions have been developed specifically for young adult TMSM. To address this gap, the current study aimed to (1) adapt a small group-based behavioral HIV prevention intervention designed for young transgender women ("LifeSkills") to address the unique HIV and STI prevention needs of young TMSM ages 18-29 years and (2) conduct a pilot evaluation of the intervention ("LifeSkills for Men"; LS4M). LS4M was carried out in an iterative approach with community input along the way, which allowed for refinement of the intervention manual and enhanced participant acceptability. A LS4M Task Force was convened to guide intervention development/adaptation and study implementation. Initially, focus groups were conducted to examine the sexual health needs, concerns, and stressors facing young TMSM (n = 12; mean age = 23.8 years; 16.7% people of color). Next, LS4M was pilot tested (n = 17; mean age = 24.3 years; 23.5% people of color) to assess acceptability with the study population and feasibility of all study procedures. Overall attendance, participation rates, and positive feedback from participants demonstrate that LS4M is highly acceptable and feasible to carry out with young TMSM. Trends in outcome measures across 4 months of follow-up suggest that participation in the intervention may improve mental health, reduce internalized stigma, and reduce HIV- and STI-related risk behaviors. Further testing of the intervention enrolling young TMSM with recent sexual risk behavior at baseline and with a control group is warranted. Lessons learned for future work with young TMSM are discussed.

Legal Protections in Public Accommodations Settings: A Critical Public Health Issue for Transgender and Gender-Nonconforming People.

POLICY POINTS: Since 2012, Massachusetts law has provided legal protections against discrimination on the basis of gender identity in employment, housing, credit, public education, and hate crimes. The law does not protect against discrimination based on gender identity in public accommodations settings such as transportation, retail stores, restaurants, health care facilities, and bathrooms. A 2013 survey of Massachusetts transgender and other gender minority adults found that in the past 12 months, 65% had experienced public accommodations discrimination since the law was passed. This discrimination was associated with a greater risk of adverse emotional and physical symptoms in the past 30 days. Nondiscrimination laws inclusive of gender identity should protect against discrimination in public accommodations settings to support transgender people's health and their ability to access health care. CONTEXT: Gender minority people who are transgender or gender nonconforming experience widespread discrimination and health inequities. Since 2012, Massachusetts law has provided protections against discrimination on the basis of gender identity in employment, housing, credit, public education, and hate crimes. The law does not, however, protect against discrimination in public accommodations (eg, hospitals, health centers, transportation, nursing homes, supermarkets, retail establishments). For this article, we examined the frequency and health correlates of public accommodations discrimination among gender minority adults in Massachusetts, with attention to discrimination in health care settings. METHODS: In 2013, we recruited a community-based sample (n = 452) both online and in person. The respondents completed a 1-time, electronic survey assessing demographics, health, health care utilization, and discrimination in public accommodations venues in the past 12 months. Using adjusted multivariable logistic regression models, we examined whether experiencing public accommodations discrimination in health care was independently associated with adverse self-reported health, adjusting for discrimination in other public accommodations settings. FINDINGS: Overall, 65% of respondents reported public accommodations discrimination in the past 12 months. The 5 most prevalent discrimination settings were transportation (36%), retail (28%), restaurants (26%), public gatherings (25%), and health care (24%). Public accommodations discrimination in the past 12 months in health care settings was independently associated with a 31% to 81% increased risk of adverse emotional and physical symptoms and a 2-fold to 3-fold increased risk of postponement of needed care when sick or injured and of preventive or routine health care, adjusting for discrimination in other public accommodations settings (which also conferred an additional 20% to 77% risk per discrimination setting endorsed). CONCLUSIONS: Discrimination in public accommodations is common and is associated with adverse health outcomes among transgender and gender-nonconforming adults in Massachusetts. Discrimination in health care settings creates a unique health risk for gender minority people. The passage and enforcement of transgender rights laws that include protections against discrimination in public accommodations-inclusive of health care-are a public health policy approach critically needed to address transgender health inequities.