Toward a Holistic Demographic Profile of Sexual and Gender Minority Well-being

Sexual and gender minority (SGM) populations experience disadvantages in physical health, mental health, and socioeconomic status relative to cisgender heterosexual populations. However, extant population research has tended to use objective measures and ignore subjective measures, examined well-bei...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Demography 2022-08, Vol.59 (4), p.1403-1430
Main Authors: Stacey, Lawrence, Reczek, Rin, Spiker, R
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Belonging
Bisexuality
Bivariate analysis
Cisgender
Connectedness
Disadvantaged
Economic well being
Economics
Gender
Gender differences
Health status
Heterosexuality
Least squares method
Lesbianism
Men
Mental health
Minority groups
Non-binary gender
Population Studies
Populations
Purpose in life
Regression analysis
Regression models
Residential communities
Sexual orientation
Sexuality
Socioeconomic status
Socioeconomics
Sociology
Subgroups
Transgender persons
Well being
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Request full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Sexual and gender minority (SGM) populations experience disadvantages in physical health, mental health, and socioeconomic status relative to cisgender heterosexual populations. However, extant population research has tended to use objective measures and ignore subjective measures, examined well-being outcomes in isolation, and lacked information on less well studied but possibly more disadvantaged SGM subgroups. In this study, we use Gallup's National Health and Well-Being Index, which permits identification of gay/lesbian, bisexual, queer, same-gender-loving, those who identify as more than one sexual identity, transgender men, transgender women, and nonbinary/genderqueer populations. We estimate bivariate associations and ordinary least-squares regression models to examine differences along five dimensions of well-being: life purpose, residential community belonging, physical and mental health, financial well-being, and social connectedness. The results reveal that most SGM groups experience stark disadvantages relative to heterosexuals and cisgender men, which are most pronounced among bisexual, queer, and nonbinary/genderqueer populations. Intergroup and intragroup variations illuminate even greater disparities in well-being than prior research has uncovered, bringing us closer to a holistic profile of SGM well-being at the population level.
ISSN:0070-3370
1533-7790
DOI:10.1215/00703370-10081664