DOCSLIB.ORG

Inequality Among Lesbian, Gay Bisexual and Transgender Groups in the UK: a Review of Evidence

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Inequality Among Lesbian, Gay Bisexual and Transgender Groups in the UK: a Review of Evidence Inequality among lesbian, gay bisexual and transgender groups in the UK: a review of evidence Nathan Hudson-Sharp and Hilary Metcalf, National Institute of Economic and Social Research July 2016 1 This research was commissioned by the Government Equalities Office (GEO). The findings and recommendations are those of the authors and do not represent the views of the GEO or government policy. While the GEO has made every effort to ensure the information in this document is accurate, the GEO does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of that information. 2 Table of Contents Executive summary ..................................................................................................... i Glossary ..................................................................................................................... vi 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Aims and scope ............................................................................................. 2 1.3 Overview of method ...................................................................................... 2 1.4 Structure of the report ................................................................................... 3 2 Overview of the evidence base ............................................................................ 5 Key points .............................................................................................................. 5 2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 5 2.2 The relative extent of the evidence base ....................................................... 9 2.3 Specific groups .............................................................................................. 9 2.4 Conclusions................................................................................................. 10 3 Education ........................................................................................................... 11 Key points ............................................................................................................ 11 3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 12 3.2 The evidence base ...................................................................................... 12 3.3 Discrimination .............................................................................................. 13 3.4 Heterosexism, transsexism and heteronormativity ...................................... 15 3.5 Bullying, harassment and language ............................................................ 18 3.6 Consequences of homophobia, biphobia and transphobia in education ..... 24 3.7 Education outcomes .................................................................................... 26 3.8 Conclusions................................................................................................. 27 4 Safety ................................................................................................................ 30 Key points ............................................................................................................ 30 4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 30 4.2 The evidence base ...................................................................................... 30 4.3 Hate Crime .................................................................................................. 31 4.4 Domestic Violence ...................................................................................... 35 4.5 Conclusions................................................................................................. 37 5 Health ................................................................................................................ 38 Key points ............................................................................................................ 38 5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 40 5.2 The evidence base ...................................................................................... 40 5.3 The health of LGB people ........................................................................... 41 5.4 Transgender and health .............................................................................. 58 5.5 Conclusions................................................................................................. 61 3 6 Access to and experience of services ................................................................ 64 Key points ............................................................................................................ 64 6.1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 64 6.2 The evidence base ...................................................................................... 64 6.3 Experiences of services .............................................................................. 65 6.4 Barriers to using services ............................................................................ 66 6.5 Monitoring and engaging LGB&T people .................................................... 68 6.6 Demand for services ................................................................................... 69 6.7 Impact of spending cuts on LGB&T services............................................... 69 6.8 Conclusions................................................................................................. 70 7 Employment ....................................................................................................... 71 Key points ............................................................................................................ 71 7.1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 71 7.2 The evidence base ...................................................................................... 71 7.3 Employment patterns .................................................................................. 72 7.4 Pay and benefits ......................................................................................... 74 7.5 Discrimination, bullying and harassment ..................................................... 75 7.6 Employer policies and practices .................................................................. 80 7.7 Conclusions................................................................................................. 81 8 LGB&T families, adoption and fostering ............................................................ 83 Key Points ............................................................................................................ 83 8.1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 83 8.2 The evidence base ...................................................................................... 83 8.3 LGB&T support networks and ‘families of choice’ ....................................... 84 8.4 LGB&T adoption and fostering .................................................................... 87 8.5 Marriage and civil partnerships of same-sex couples .................................. 88 8.6 Conclusions................................................................................................. 89 9 Homelessness and Access to Housing Provision .............................................. 90 Key Points ............................................................................................................ 90 9.1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 90 9.2 The evidence base ...................................................................................... 90 9.3 Homelessness ............................................................................................. 91 9.4 Accessing suitable housing ......................................................................... 92 9.5 Housing into old age ................................................................................... 93 9.6 Conclusions................................................................................................. 94 10 Civic Society ................................................................................................... 96 Key Points ............................................................................................................ 96 10.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 96 10.2 The evidence base ................................................................................... 96 10.3 Disengagement from formal democracy .................................................. 97 10.4 Barriers to engagement ........................................................................... 97 10.5 Informal engagement ............................................................................... 98 10.6 Experiences of participation ....................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Ready, Set, Go!
    READY, SET, GO! GUIDELINES AND TIPS FOR COLLECTING PATIENT DATA ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND GENDER IDENTITY January 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION Why Collect Data on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity? 1 How to Use This Guide 1 READY! Creating a Team and a Timeline 2 Fig 1. Sample Timeline 2 Developing a Workflow 3 Fig 2. Sample Process of Collecting SO/GI Data 3 Adding Questions to Registration Forms 4 Fig 3a. Recommended SO/GI Questions 4 Fig 3b. Definitions of SO/GI Categories 4 Translations of Questions 5 Definitions of SO/GI Categories 5 Names and Pronouns 6 Fig 4. Sample Registration Form 7 Considerations for Children and Adolescents 7 SET! Customizing the EHR 8 Fig 5. Sample Pronoun Color Code 9 Training Staff 9 Educating Patients 10 Patient Education Brochures 10 Fig 6. Sample SO/GI Patient Brochures 10 Privacy and Confidentiality 11 Responding to Patient Questions and Concerns 11 Discussing SO/GI during the Clinical Encounter 12 Responding to Staff Concerns 13 Creating a Welcoming and Inclusive Health Center 13 LGBTQ Cultural Competency Resources 14 GO! Piloting the Process 15 Analyzing and Applying SO/GI Data 15 Monitoring Data Quality 16 Fig 7. Sample Staff Roles in Data Quality Improvement 16 LESSONS FROM THE FIELD 17 ADDITIONAL RESOURCES 18 INTRODUCTION Why Collect Data on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity? Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people experience significant health disparities and require preventive services and treatment interventions tailored to their unique needs. Yet health care pro- viders often do not know the sexual orientation or gender identity (SO/GI) of their patients, leading to missed screenings, less effective counseling, culturally insensitive remarks, and other missteps.
    [Show full text]
  • Domestic Violence and Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Relationships
    DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL AND TRANSGENDER RELATIONSHIPS WHY IT MATTERS Domestic violence is defined as a pattern of behaviors utilized by one partner (the batterer or abuser) to exert and maintain control over another person (the survivor or victim) where there exists an intimate and/or dependent relationship. Experts believe that domestic violence occurs in the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community with the same amount of frequency and severity as in the heterosexual community. Society’s long history of entrenched racism, sexism, homophobia and transphobia prevents LGBT victims of domestic violence from seeking help from the police, legal and court systems for fear of discrimination or bias.1 DID YOU KNOW? • In ten cities and two states alone, there were 3,524 incidents of domestic violence affecting LGBT individuals, according to the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs 2006 Report on Lesbian, Gay, Bi-Sexual and Transgender Domestic Violence.1 • LGBT domestic violence is vastly underreported, unacknowledged, and often reported as Intimidation something other than domestic violence.1 Coercion and Threats Making you afraid, Threatening to harm you, abusing pets, • Delaware, Montana and South Carolina explicitly family or friends, or him/ displaying weapons, herself, threatening to using tactics to exclude same-sex survivors of domestic violence out you. reinforce homophobic from protection under criminal laws. Eighteen control states have domestic violence laws that are Economic Abuse Emotional Abuse Preventing you from working, Putting you down, verbal gender neutral but apply to household members controlling all assets, interfering abuse, playing mind games, 2 with education, requiring you to humiliating you, reinforcing only.
    [Show full text]
  • Attitudes Toward Bisexuality According to Sexual Orientation and Gender
    Fairfield University DigitalCommons@Fairfield Graduate School of Education & Allied GSEAP Faculty Publications Professions 7-2016 Attitudes Toward Bisexuality According to Sexual Orientation and Gender Katherine M. Hertlein Erica E. Hartwell Fairfield University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.fairfield.edu/education-facultypubs Copyright 2016 Taylor and Francis. A post-print has been archived with permission from the copyright holder. This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Journal of Bisexuality in 2016, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/ 15299716.2016.1200510 Peer Reviewed Repository Citation Hertlein, Katherine M. and Hartwell, Erica E., "Attitudes Toward Bisexuality According to Sexual Orientation and Gender" (2016). GSEAP Faculty Publications. 126. https://digitalcommons.fairfield.edu/education-facultypubs/126 Published Citation Hertlein, Katherine M., Erica E. Hartwell, and Mashara E. Munns. "Attitudes Toward Bisexuality According to Sexual Orientation and Gender." Journal of Bisexuality (July 2016) 16(3): 1-22. This item has been accepted for inclusion in DigitalCommons@Fairfield by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Fairfield. It is brought to you by DigitalCommons@Fairfield with permission from the rights- holder(s) and is protected by copyright and/or related rights. You are free to use this item in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses, you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/or on the work itself. For more information, please contact [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • Pride Lineup R Ee Qb
    F PRIDE LINEUP R EE QB Nottinghamshire’s Queer Bulletin August/September 2011 Number 61 The Pride stage will undergo meiosis and divide into 4. As well as the Main Stage (hosted by Harry Derbridge - from “The only way is Essex”), Politicians experience often scath- you can enjoy the Acoustic Stage, the Comedy Stage and a family zone - ing criticism on a daily basis in our The Village Green. Some of the performers featured are listed below. newspapers. On radio and televi- sion they are subject to the mock- MAIN STAGE ACOUSTIC STAGE COMEDY STAGE ery which is part of a tradition going Booty Luv Kenelis Julie Jepson back to - at least - the ancient Ruth Lorenzo Maniére des Suzi Ruffle Greeks. Cartoonists have a field day. David Cameron is portrayed Drag with No Name Bohémiens Rosie Wilby by one as a "Little Lord Fauntleroy" Fat Digester Gallery 47 Rachel Stubbins type and by another as a pink hu- Propaganda Betty Munroe & Josephine Ettrick-Hogg man condom with big wobbly Danny Stafford The Blue Majestix Carly Smallman Youth Spot The Idolins breasts. VILLAGE GREEN Jo Francis Emily Franklin Our mockery and fact-based criti- Captain Dangerous Wax Ersatz Asian Dance Group cisms of Kay Cutts pale beside this Vibebar May KB Pirate Show and beside what one reads on the Benjamin Bloom Selma Thurman Carlton Brass Band local Parish of Nottinghamshire Grey Matter Ball Bois display website, to which we referred. Poli- The Cedars Hosts: John Gill & Dog display team ticians need broad shoulders. Bear- NG1/@D2 Princess Babserella Tatterneers Band ing in mind the size of Mrs Cutts' "shoulders", the County Library QB ban is utterly predictable.
    [Show full text]
  • Hello Sailor! Canadian Edition Oral History Project a Research Report for the Maritime Museum of the Atlantic Halifax, Nova Scotia
    Hello Sailor! Canadian Edition Oral History Project A Research Report for the Maritime Museum of the Atlantic Halifax, Nova Scotia Final Report Emily Burton and Bob Harding Researchers 30 March 2011 (Revised 10 May 2011) 1 Hello Sailor! Canadian Edition Final Report Emily Burton and Bob Harding Researchers 30 March 2011 (Revised 10 May 2011) I Literature Review & Bibliography II Methodology III Discussion of Findings (i) Preliminary and Going to Sea (ii) Work, Leisure and Language (iii) Diversity Onboard (iv) Seafarers in Port (v) Coming Home (vi) Trans-gendered Identity IV Recommendations of Potential Themes (i) Departure from ‘Heaven and Hell’ (ii) The Good, the Bad, and the Boring (iii) Sailor First (iv) Homophobia (v) Recommendations for Further Research 2 I Literature Review & Bibliography This brief essay reviews the literatures pertaining to the experiences of gay seafarers in the Canadian historical context. It focuses on three particular bodies of historical literature. First, it reviews treatments of gay seafarers and homosexuality within the broader historiography of North Atlantic seafaring. Second, it reveals the lack of scholarly attention to gay seafarers within Canadian gay and lesbian studies. Third, it examines how gay seafarers and homosexual culture at sea have been addressed within the American historiographical context. This essay also highlights how oral research enables scholars to more fully illuminate the experiences of gay sailors and the nature homosexual culture at sea. The essay demonstrates that while homosexuality has been addressed within the general historiography on North Atlantic seafaring, it remains a largely unexplored topic within the Canadian historiographical tradition. However, pioneering studies in the American context offer useful conceptual and methodological models for incorporating the history of gay seafaring culture into the Canadian narratives of seafaring as well as gay and lesbian history.
    [Show full text]
  • University LGBT Centers and the Professional Roles Attached to Such Spaces Are Roughly
    INTRODUCTION University LGBT Centers and the professional roles attached to such spaces are roughly 45-years old. Cultural and political evolution has been tremendous in that time and yet researchers have yielded a relatively small field of literature focusing on university LGBT centers. As a scholar-activist practitioner struggling daily to engage in a critically conscious life and professional role, I launched an interrogation of the foundational theorizing of university LGBT centers. In this article, I critically examine the discursive framing, theorization, and practice of LGBT campus centers as represented in the only three texts specifically written about center development and practice. These three texts are considered by center directors/coordinators, per my conversations with colleagues and search of the literature, to be the canon in terms of how centers have been conceptualized and implemented. The purpose of this work was three-fold. Through a queer feminist lens focused through interlocking systems of oppression and the use of critical discourse analysis (CDA) 1, I first examined the methodological frameworks through which the canonical literature on centers has been produced. The second purpose was to identify if and/or how identity and multicultural frameworks reaffirmed whiteness as a norm for LGBT center directors. Finally, I critically discussed and raised questions as to how to interrupt and resist heteronormativity and homonormativity in the theoretical framing of center purpose and practice. Hired to develop and direct the University of Washington’s first lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT2) campus center in 2004, I had the rare opportunity to set and implement with the collaboration of queerly minded students, faculty, and staff, a critically theorized and reflexive space.
    [Show full text]
  • Homophobia and Transphobia Illumination Project Curriculum
    Homophobia and Transphobia Illumination Project Curriculum Andrew S. Forshee, Ph.D., Early Education & Family Studies Portland Community College Portland, Oregon INTRODUCTION Homophobia and transphobia are complicated topics that touch on core identity issues. Most people tend to conflate sexual orientation with gender identity, thus confusing two social distinctions. Understanding the differences between these concepts provides an opportunity to build personal knowledge, enhance skills in allyship, and effect positive social change. GROUND RULES (10­15 minutes) Materials: chart paper, markers, tape. Due to the nature of the topic area, it is essential to develop ground rules for each student to follow. Ask students to offer some rules for participation in the post­performance workshop (i.e., what would help them participate to their fullest). Attempt to obtain a group consensus before adopting them as the official “social contract” of the group. Useful guidelines include the following (Bonner Curriculum, 2009; Hardiman, Jackson, & Griffin, 2007): Respect each viewpoint, opinion, and experience. Use “I” statements – avoid speaking in generalities. The conversations in the class are confidential (do not share information outside of class). Set own boundaries for sharing. Share air time. Listen respectfully. No blaming or scapegoating. Focus on own learning. Reference to PCC Student Rights and Responsibilities: http://www.pcc.edu/about/policy/student­rights/student­rights.pdf DEFINING THE CONCEPTS (see Appendix A for specific exercise) An active “toolkit” of terminology helps support the ongoing dialogue, questioning, and understanding about issues of homophobia and transphobia. Clear definitions also provide a context and platform for discussion. Homophobia: a psychological term originally developed by Weinberg (1973) to define an irrational hatred, anxiety, and or fear of homosexuality.
    [Show full text]
  • Violence Against Lesbians and Gay Men
    Columbia Law School Scholarship Archive Faculty Scholarship Faculty Publications 1994 Violence Against Lesbians and Gay Men Suzanne B. Goldberg Columbia Law School, [email protected] Bea Hanson Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, Criminal Law Commons, and the Sexuality and the Law Commons Recommended Citation Suzanne B. Goldberg & Bea Hanson, Violence Against Lesbians and Gay Men, 28 CLEARINGHOUSE REV. 417 (1994). Available at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/1104 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Publications at Scholarship Archive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Scholarship Archive. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Violence Against Lesbians and Gay Men by Suzanne B. Goldberg and Bea Hanson* I. Introduction cies across the country. According to the New York City Police Department Bias Incident Investigations Unit, aggot! Dyke! Pervert! Homo!" Just words? Or more bias-motivated homicides of gay men in New York rhetoric that illuminates and fuels hatred of les­ City have occurred in the last three years than of all other Fbians and gay men? How often are these words groups combined. supplemented by the use of a bat, golf clubs, a hammer, Anyone can be the target of an antigay or antilesbian a knife, a gun? Studies indicate that lesbians and gay men bias attack regardless of sexual orientation. Bias is based experience criminal victimization at rates significantly on the perpetrator's perception that the victim belongs to higher than other individuals and are the most frequent the targeted hate group.
    [Show full text]
  • Not Just Words: Exposure to Homophobic Epithets Leads To
    EJSP RESEARCH ARTICLE Not “just words”: Exposure to homophobic epithets leads to dehumanizing and physical distancing from gay men Fabio Fasoli*, Maria Paola Paladino†,AndreaCarnaghi‡, Jolanda Jetten§, Brock Bastian¶ & Paul G. Bain§,# * Centro de Investigação e Intervenção Social, Instituto Universitário de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal † Department of Psychology and Cognitive Science, University of Trento, Rovereto, Italy ‡ Department of Life Sciences, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy § School of Psychology, University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Brisbane, Australia ¶ School of Psychology, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia # School of Psychology and Counselling, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia Correspondence Abstract Fabio Fasoli, ISCTE-Instituto Universitário de Lisboa, Centro de Investigação e Intervenção We examined whether homophobic epithets (e.g., faggot) function as labels of Social, Lisbon, Portugal. deviance for homosexuals that contribute to their dehumanization and phys- E-mail: [email protected]; ical distance. Across two studies, participants were supraliminally (Study 1) [email protected] and subliminally (Study 2) exposed to a homophobic epithet, a category label, or a generic insult. Participants were then asked to associate human- Received: 9 June 2014 related and animal-related words to homosexuals and heterosexuals. Results Accepted: 1 August 2015 showed that after exposure to a homophobic epithet, compared with a cate- gory label or a generic insult, participants associated less human-related http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2148 words with homosexuals, indicating dehumanization. In Study 2, we also Keywords: derogatory labels, deviance, assessed the effect of a homophobic epithet on physical distance from a target dehumanization, homophobia, physical group member and found that homophobic epithets led to greater physical distance distancing of a gay man.
    [Show full text]
  • Sexual Orientation Research Review 2008
    Equality and Human Rights Commission Research report 34 Sexual orientation research review 2008 Martin Mitchell, Charlie Howarth, Mehul Kotecha and Chris Creegan NatCen Sexual orientation research review 2008 Martin Mitchell, Charlie Howarth, Mehul Kotecha and Chris Creegan Equality and Human Rights Commission 2009 First published Autumn 2009 ISBN 978 1 84206 113 8 Equality and Human Rights Commission Research Report Series The Equality and Human Rights Commission Research Report Series publishes research carried out for the Equality and Human Rights Commission (the Commission) by commissioned researchers. The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Commission. The Commission is publishing the report as a contribution to discussion and debate. Please contact the Research Team for further information about other Equality and Human Rights Commission’s research reports, or visit our website: Research Team Equality and Human Rights Commission Arndale House The Arndale Centre Manchester M4 3AQ Email: [email protected] Telephone: 0161 829 8500 Website: www.equalityhumanrights.com You can download a copy of this report and the full report as a PDF from our website: www.equalityhumanrights.com 2 CONTENTS TABLES 12 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 13 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 14 FOREWORD 15 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 19 1 INTRODUCTION 36 1.1 Aims and objectives 36 1.2 Coverage and approach 37 1.3 Context 38 2 MEASURING SEXUAL ORIENTATION – DEFINITIONS AND SIZE 39 2.1 User need for national
    [Show full text]
  • INTERRUPTING HETERONORMATIVITY Copyright 2004, the Graduate School of Syracuse University
    >>>>>> >>>>>> INTERRUPTING HETERONORMATIVITY Copyright 2004, The Graduate School of Syracuse University. Portions of this publication may be reproduced with acknowledgment for educational purposes. For more information about this publication, contact the Graduate School at Syracuse University, 423 Bowne Hall, Syracuse, New York 13244. >> contents Acknowledgments................................................................................... i Vice Chancellor’s Preface DEBORAH A. FREUND...................................................................... iii Editors’ Introduction MARY QUEEN, KATHLEEN FARRELL, AND NISHA GUPTA ............................ 1 PART ONE: INTERRUPTING HETERONORMATIVITY FRAMING THE ISSUES Heteronormativity and Teaching at Syracuse University SUSAN ADAMS.............................................................................. 13 Cartography of (Un)Intelligibility: A Migrant Intellectual’s Tale of the Field HUEI-HSUAN LIN............................................................................ 21 The Invisible Presence of Sexuality in the Classroom AHOURA AFSHAR........................................................................... 33 LISTENING TO STUDENTS (Un)Straightening the Syracuse University Landscape AMAN LUTHRA............................................................................... 45 Echoes of Silence: Experiences of LGBT College Students at SU RACHEL MORAN AND BRIAN STOUT..................................................... 55 The Importance of LGBT Allies CAMILLE BAKER............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Suicidality Disparities Between Transgender and Cisgender Adolescents Brian C
    Suicidality Disparities Between Transgender and Cisgender Adolescents Brian C. Thoma, PhD,a Rachel H. Salk, PhD,a Sophia Choukas-Bradley, PhD,b Tina R. Goldstein, PhD,a Michele D. Levine, PhD,a Michael P. Marshal, PhDa BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Emerging evidence indicates transgender adolescents (TGAs) exhibit abstract elevated rates of suicidal ideation and attempt compared with cisgender adolescents (CGAs). Less is known about risk among subgroups of TGAs because of limited measures of gender identity in previous studies. We examined disparities in suicidality across the full spectrum of suicidality between TGAs and CGAs and examined risk for suicidality within TGA subgroups. METHODS: Adolescents aged 14 to 18 completed a cross-sectional online survey (N = 2020, including 1148 TGAs). Participants reported gender assigned at birth and current gender identity (categorized as cisgender males, cisgender females, transgender males, transgender females, nonbinary adolescents assigned female at birth, nonbinary adolescents assigned male at birth, and questioning gender identity). Lifetime suicidality (passive death wish, suicidal ideation, suicide plan, suicide attempt, and attempt requiring medical care) and nonsuicidal self-injury were assessed. RESULTS: Aggregated into 1 group, TGAs had higher odds of all outcomes as compared with CGAs. Within TGA subgroups, transgender males and transgender females had higher odds of suicidal ideation and attempt than CGA groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we used comprehensive measures of gender assigned at birth and current gender identity within a large nationwide survey of adolescents in the United States to examine suicidality among TGAs and CGAs. TGAs had higher odds of all suicidality outcomes, and transgender males and transgender females had high risk for suicidal ideation and attempt.
    [Show full text]