Reimagining LGBTIQ research Acknowledging differences across subpopulations, methods, and countries

Prévia do material em texto

Received: 30 August 2024 Revised: 4 September 2024 Accepted: 6 September 2024
DOI: 10.1111/josi.12643
COMPREH ENS IVE
REVIEW
Reimagining LGBTIQ+ research –
Acknowledging differences across
subpopulations, methods, and countries
Tabea Hässler1 Nicole Theiss Fogwell2
Alejandra Gonzalez3 Joel R. Anderson4 S. Atwood5
1Department of Psychology, University of
Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
2Jackson Health System, Miami, USA
3School of Psychology, Xavier University,
Cincinnati, USA
4Australian Research Centre in Sex,
Health, and Society, La Trobe University
5Department of Psychology, Princeton
University, Princeton, USA
Correspondence
Tabea Hässler, University of Zurich,
Zurich, Switzerland.
Email: tabea.haessler@uzh.ch
Funding information
University of Massachusetts Boston;
Society for the Psychological Study of
Social Issues, Grant/Award Number:
EASP-SPSSI Small Group Meeting Grant;
European Association of Social
Psychology, Grant/Award Number:
EASP-SPSSI Small Group Meeting Grant
Abstract
Inequalities and discrimination based on gender identity,
sexual orientation, and sex characteristics remain per-
vasive worldwide. Scholars have collaborated to address
structural and social barriers in LGBTIQ+ research, cre-
ating a substantial literature base. However, much of this
work focuses on specific segments of the population, over-
looks resilience- and strengths-based approaches, and is
predominantly conducted in the U.S. and other Western
countries. In this introduction article, we discuss how this
special issue extends previous research by uniting schol-
ars globally to collaboratively reimagine the lens through
which scientists conduct LGBTIQ+ research. By explor-
ing diverging needs across subgroups of LGBTIQ+ people,
discussing the (dis)advantages of various methodological
choices, and offering a better understanding of how unique
legal and social landscapes affect LGBTIQ+ individuals
globally, this special issue aims to provide a comprehen-
sive picture of the current state of research combined
with concrete directions for redress. Given that barriers
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use,
distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
© 2024 The Author(s). Journal of Social Issues published byWiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society for the Psychological Study of Social
Issues.
J Soc Issues 2024;80:821–842. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/josi 821
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9371-2423
https://orcid.org/0009-0004-0027-9838
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2525-2832
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3649-2003
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2889-9575
mailto:tabea.haessler@uzh.ch
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
https://wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/josi
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1111%2Fjosi.12643&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2024-10-10
822 HÄSSLER et al.
to conducting LGBTIQ+ research differ significantly by
nation, we conclude this introductory article by calling for
a research community that ismore aware of unequal power
dynamics within academia, willing to take action to reduce
disparities in the global academic system, and inclusive of
voices from underrepresented groups.
INTRODUCTION
The year 2023 marked the 50th anniversary of the initial removal of sexual orientation from psy-
chiatric and psychological nomenclature. “Homosexuality” (see Table 1 for a definition of all
key terms) was removed as a psychiatric diagnosis from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual
of Mental Disorders in 1973 (DSM-II) and from the International Classification of Disorders in 1990
(ICD-10). Non-cisgender gender identities were removed from these nomenclaturesmuch later, in
2013 (DSM-V) and 2018 (ICD-11), respectively (see also Ashley, 2021; Drescher, 2015; MacKinnon,
2018) and intersex people continue to be subjected to irreversible and non-consensual medical
intervention during their childhood to this day (Crocetti et al., 2023). Despite this progress on
some dimensions, social and legal inequalities and discrimination based on gender identity, gen-
der expression, sexual orientation, and sex characteristics persist across the world (Anderson &
Holland, 2015; ILGA, 2023; Velasco, 2020).
At the same time, lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, intersex, and queer/questioning (LGBTIQ+)
people continue to create spaces where community members can engage in mutual support in
the face of hardships and discrimination, be themselves, thrive, and stand together to fight for
equal treatment from the cisgender, heterosexual, and endosex majority. In academia, LGBTIQ+
scholars and allies also work hard to overcome structural, social, and institutional barriers
to conducting LGBTIQ+ research (e.g., Barrientos & Radi, 2021), resulting in a substantial
body of multidisciplinary qualitative and quantitative research ranging from theoretical mod-
els of gender and sexuality perceptions (Meyer, 2003; Morgenroth & Ryan, 2021; van Anders,
2015) to empirical investigations, such as longitudinal studies exploring the lived experiences of
queer people over time (e.g., Generations Study, Pride Study, U.S. Transgender Survey, and the
Swiss LGBTIQ+ Panel).
This special issue builds upon this existing body of LGBTIQ+ scholarship by bringing together
scholars fromacross the globe to collectively and collaboratively reimagine the lens throughwhich
scientists conceptualize and conduct LGBTIQ+ research. Following this introductory article, the
second section of the issue focuses on the contemporary needs and priorities of the various sub-
groups of LGBTIQ+ people and communities. The third section pertains to research methods,
focusing on shortcomings and best practices in the current landscape of LGBTIQ+ research (e.g.,
open science practices; see Abo-Zena et al., 2022, Leskinen et al., 2024). The fourth section crit-
ically examines differences between countries, centering on how differences in socio-political
climates may affect LGBTIQ+ people and communities around the globe.
This contribution comprises eleven articles. The review articles in this issue span a wide
variety of topics, and together constitute an up-to-date and accessible review of the field with
connections to social issues and relevant social policy. In addition, this issue includes perspec-
tives from scholars from six different continents (Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America, Oceania,
 15404560, 2024, 3, D
ow
nloaded from
 https://spssi.onlinelibrary.w
iley.com
/doi/10.1111/josi.12643 by C
A
PE
S, W
iley O
nline L
ibrary on [21/11/2024]. See the T
erm
s and C
onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com
/term
s-and-conditions) on W
iley O
nline L
ibrary for rules of use; O
A
 articles are governed by the applicable C
reative C
om
m
ons L
icense
http://www.generations-study.com/
https://www.pridestudy.org/
https://ustranssurvey.org/project-overview/
https://swiss-lgbtiq-panel.ch/
Reimagining LGBTIQ+ research 823
TABLE 1 Glossary of definition of the terms regarding the lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, intersex,
queer/questioning (LGBTIQ+) community that we use in our manuscript. We bold the term the first time they
come up within the manuscript.
Asexual A term used to describe a person with a lack of sexual attraction to others, or low or
absent interest in or desire for sexual activity. It may also be categorized more widely, to
include a broad spectrum of asexual sub-identities.
Bisexual A term used to describe a person who is attracted to more than one gender. Distinct from
pansexual, which includes attraction to people regardless of gender.
Cisgender A term used to describe a person whose gender identity matches their assigned sex at
birth.
Endosex A term used to describe persons whose sex characteristics fit normative medical and
social ideas for female or male bodies.
Gay man Aman who is attracted to other men.
Gender diverse
people
Individuals whose genderframing issues aroundnaming intersex rights claims as human rights abuses. Sociology ofHealth& Illness,
42(4), 943–958. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.13072
Crocetti, D., Berry, A., & Monro, S. (2023). Navigating the complexities of adult healthcare for individuals with
variations of sex characteristics: From paediatric emergencies to a sense of abandonment. Culture, Health &
Sexuality, Advance online publication. 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691058.2023.2208194
de Brito Silva, B., Vaitses Fontanari, A. M., Seibel, B. L., Chinazzo, Í. R., Luxion, K., Rodrigues Lobato, M. I., Nardi,
H. C., Koller, S. H., & Costa, A. B. (2023). Transgender parenthood, participation in children’s lives, and asso-
ciation with discrimination experiences: An exploratory study. Family Relations, 72(1), 122–139. https://doi.org/
10.1111/fare.12637
Durrheim, K. (2023). Conversational silencing of racism in psychological science: Toward decolonization in
practice. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17456916231182922. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691623118292
Drescher, J. (2015). Out of DSM: Depathologizing homosexuality. Behavioral Sciences, 5(4), 565–575. https://doi.
org/10.3390/bs5040565
Edelman, E.A. (2020). Gender identity and transgender rights in global perspective.TheOxfordHandbook ofGlobal
LGBT and Sexual Diversity Politics, 63.
Ellis, S., Riggs, D., & Peel, E. (2019). Sex, gender, and sexualities in psychology. In Lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans,
intersex, and queer psychology: An introduction (pp. 38–64). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/
9781108303750.003
Flores, A. R. (2021). Social acceptance of LGBTI people in 175 countries and locations. UCLA: The Williams
Institute. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1jg3s5jx
Fournier-Pereira, M. (2014). Feminismos e interseccionalidad: Aportes para pensar los feminismos lésbicos cen-
troamericanos. Cuadernos Inter.c.a.mbio sobre Centroamérica y el Caribe, 11(2), 67–87. https://revistas.ucr.ac.cr/
index.php/intercambio/article/view/16637
Freude, L., & Vergés Bosch, N. (2020). Homonationalism in Europe? A quantitative comparison of the values of
Europeans. Sexuality & Culture, 24, 1292–1314. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-019-09683-7
Gerstein, L. H., & Ægisdóttir, S. (2012). Internationalization of counseling psychology. In E. M. Altmaier & J.-I. C.
Hansen (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of counseling psychology (pp. 873–913). Oxford University Press.
Grant, J., Mottet, L., Tanis, J., & Min, D. (2011). Injustice at every turn: A report of the national. National Center
for Transgender Equality and National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. Retrieved from http://www.thetaskforce.org/
downloads/reports/reports/ntds_full.pdf
 15404560, 2024, 3, D
ow
nloaded from
 https://spssi.onlinelibrary.w
iley.com
/doi/10.1111/josi.12643 by C
A
PE
S, W
iley O
nline L
ibrary on [21/11/2024]. See the T
erm
s and C
onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com
/term
s-and-conditions) on W
iley O
nline L
ibrary for rules of use; O
A
 articles are governed by the applicable C
reative C
om
m
ons L
icense
https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470713099.ch2
https://doi.org/10.1111/hypa.12494
https://doi.org/10.1037/rep0000250
https://doi.org/10.1080/00207594.2012.729839
https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301501
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.13072
https://doi.org/10.1080/13691058.2023.2208194
https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12637
https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12637
https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691623118292
https://doi.org/10.3390/bs5040565
https://doi.org/10.3390/bs5040565
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108303750.003
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108303750.003
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1jg3s5jx
https://revistas.ucr.ac.cr/index.php/intercambio/article/view/16637
https://revistas.ucr.ac.cr/index.php/intercambio/article/view/16637
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-019-09683-7
http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/reports/reports/ntds_full.pdf
http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/reports/reports/ntds_full.pdf
838 HÄSSLER et al.
Hadler, M., & Symons, J. (2018). World society divided: Divergent trends in state responses to sexual minorities and
their reflection in public attitudes. Social Forces, 96(4), 1721–1756. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/soy019
Hässler, T., & Eisner, L. (2022). Swiss LGBTIQ+ Panel − 2022 Summary Report. https://www.doi.org/10.31234/osf.
io/whfe7
Hughto, J.M.W., Reisner, S. L., & Pachankis, J. E. (2015). Transgender stigma and health: A critical review of stigma
determinants, mechanisms, and interventions. Social Science & Medicine, 147, 222–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.socscimed.2015.11.010
Human Dignity Trust. (2024). Map of countries that criminalise LGBT people. Retrieved
from https://www.humandignitytrust.org/lgbt-the-law/map-of-criminalisation/?gad_source=
1&gclid=CjwKCAjwuMC2BhA7EiwAmJKRrKnunSm8A60om1USt6SJV_6BEXUFKyR2Nug-
G1TMTJymKstiKO3Q5xoCRykQAvD_BwE
International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGAWorld). (2023). ILGAWorld Database.
Retrieved from https://database.ilga.org/en
Jorge, J. C., Valerio-Pérez, L., Esteban, C., & Rivera-Lassen, A. I. (2021). Intersex care in the United States and
international standards of human rights. Global Public Health, 16(5), 679–691. https://doi.org/10.1080/17441692.
2019.1706759
Kahalon, R., Klein, V., Ksenofontov, I., Ullrich, J., & Wright, S. C. (2022). Mentioning the sample’s country in the
article’s title leads to bias in research evaluation. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 13(2), 352–361.
https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506211024036
Kaoma, K. (2014). The paradox and tension of moral claims: Evangelical Christianity, the politicization and glob-
alization of sexual politics in sub-Saharan Africa. Critical Research on Religion, 2(3), 227–245. https://doi.org/10.
1177/2050303214552571
Kemer, G., Demirtaş, E. T., Pope, A. L., & Ummak, E. (2017). Psychometric properties of the lesbian, gay, and bisex-
ual identity scale–Turkish (LGBIS-TR). Journal of Homosexuality, 64(12), 1632–1649. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00918369.2016.1249741
Klysing, A., Prandelli,M., Roselló-Peñaloza,M., Alonso, D., Gray,M., Glazier, J., Swanson, S., &Wang, Y.-C. (2024).
Conducting research within the acronym: Problematizing LGBTIQ+ research in psychology. Journal of Social
Issues.
Knowles, Z. C. (2021). Criminalizing LGBTQ+ Jamaicans: Social, legal, and colonial influences on homophobic
policy [Doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida]. Proquest Dissertations and Theses Global.
Lang, N. (2021, March 8). More anti-trans bills have been introduced in 2021 than any year in history. Them.
Retrieved from https://www.them.us/story/anti-trans-bills-2021
Ledgerwood, A., Hudson, S. K. T. J., Lewis Jr, N. A., Maddox, K. B., Pickett, C. L., Remedios, J. D., Cheryan, S.,
Diekman, A. B., Dutra, N. B., Goh, J. X., Goodwin, S. A., Munakata, Y., Navarro, D. J., Onyeador, I. N., Srivastava,
S., & Wilkins, C. L. (2022). The pandemic as a portal: Reimagining psychological science as truly open and
inclusive. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(4), 937–959. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691621103665
Leivas, P. G. C., Schiavon, A. D. A., Resadori, A. H., Vanin, A. A., Almeida, A. D. N., & Machado, P. S. (2023).
Human rights violations in normalizing procedures on intersex children.Cadernos de Saúde Pública, 39(1), 1–13.
https://doi.org/10.1590/0102-311XEN066322
Lewis, D. C., Flores, A. R., Haider-Markel, D. P., Miller, P. R., Tadlock, B. L., & Taylor, J. K. (2017). Degrees of
acceptance: Variation in public attitudes toward segments of the LGBT community. Political Research Quarterly,
70(4), 861–875. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912917717352
Leskinen, E., Horne, S. G., Ryan, W., & van der Toorn, J. (2024). The opportunities and limits of open science for
LGBTIQ+ research. Journal of Social Issues.
Li, K. C., van Berlekom, E., Atwood, S., & Wang, Y.-C. (2024). Towards inclusive and equitable LGBTIQ+ mea-
surement: Assessing gender and sexual orientation measures and scale validityin national surveys across 21
countries . Journal of Social Issues.
Lyons, A., Rasmussen,M. L., Anderson, J., & Gray, E. (2021). Counting gender and sexual identity in the Australian
census. Australian Population Studies, 5(1), 40–48. https://doi.org/10.37970/aps.v4i2.69
Lyons, A., Anderson, J., Rasmussen,M. L., &Gray, E. (2020). Towardmaking sexual and gender diverse populations
count in Australia. Australian Population Studies, 4(2), 14–29. https://doi.org/10.37970/aps.v4i2.69
Machado, P. S., Costa, A. B., Nardi, H. C., Fontanari, A.M. V., Araujo, I. R., &Knauth, D. R. (2016). Follow-up of psy-
chological outcomes of interventions in patients diagnosed with disorders of sexual development: A systematic
review. Journal of Health Psychology, 21(10), 2195–2206. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105315572454
 15404560, 2024, 3, D
ow
nloaded from
 https://spssi.onlinelibrary.w
iley.com
/doi/10.1111/josi.12643 by C
A
PE
S, W
iley O
nline L
ibrary on [21/11/2024]. See the T
erm
s and C
onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com
/term
s-and-conditions) on W
iley O
nline L
ibrary for rules of use; O
A
 articles are governed by the applicable C
reative C
om
m
ons L
icense
https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/soy019
https://www.doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/whfe7
https://www.doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/whfe7
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.11.010
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.11.010
https://www.humandignitytrust.org/lgbt-the-law/map-of-criminalisation/?gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAjwuMC2BhA7EiwAmJKRrKnunSm8A60om1USt6SJV_6BEXUFKyR2Nug-G1TMTJymKstiKO3Q5xoCRykQAvD_BwE
https://www.humandignitytrust.org/lgbt-the-law/map-of-criminalisation/?gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAjwuMC2BhA7EiwAmJKRrKnunSm8A60om1USt6SJV_6BEXUFKyR2Nug-G1TMTJymKstiKO3Q5xoCRykQAvD_BwE
https://www.humandignitytrust.org/lgbt-the-law/map-of-criminalisation/?gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAjwuMC2BhA7EiwAmJKRrKnunSm8A60om1USt6SJV_6BEXUFKyR2Nug-G1TMTJymKstiKO3Q5xoCRykQAvD_BwE
https://database.ilga.org/en
https://doi.org/10.1080/17441692.2019.1706759
https://doi.org/10.1080/17441692.2019.1706759
https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506211024036
https://doi.org/10.1177/2050303214552571
https://doi.org/10.1177/2050303214552571
https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2016.1249741
https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2016.1249741
https://www.them.us/story/anti-trans-bills-2021
https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691621103665
https://doi.org/10.1590/0102-311XEN066322
https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912917717352
https://doi.org/10.37970/aps.v4i2.69
https://doi.org/10.37970/aps.v4i2.69
https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105315572454
Reimagining LGBTIQ+ research 839
MacKinnon, K. R. (2018). Pathologising trans people: Exploring the roles of patients andmedical personnel. Theory
in Action, 11(4), 74–96. https://doi.org/10.3798/tia.1937-0237.1826
Marshall, Z., Kaposy, C., Brunger, F., & Welch, V. (2022). Trans research ethics: Challenges and recommendations
for change. Bulletin of Applied Transgender Studies, 1(3-4), 187–210. https://doi.org/10.57814/2rv3-kf42
Merry, S. (2003). From law and colonialism to law and globalization. Law & Social Inquiry, 28(2), 569–590. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-4469.2003.tb00206.x
Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, andmental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual
issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 674–697. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674
Meyer, I. H., Marken, S., Russell, S. T., Frost, D. M., & Wilson, B. D. (2020). An innovative approach to the design
of a national probability sample of sexual minority adults. LGBT Health, 7(2), 101–108. https://doi.org/10.1089/
lgbt.2019.0145
McLean, C. (2021). The growth of the anti-transgendermovement in the United Kingdom. The silent radicalization
of theBritish electorate. International Journal of Sociology, 51(6), 473–482. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207659.2021.
1939946
Milani, T. M., & Lazar, M. M. (2017). Seeing from the South: Discourse, gender and sexuality from southern
perspectives. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 21(3), 307–319. https://doi.org/10.1111/josl.12241
Mogotsi, I., Otubea Otchere, Y., Botchway, I., Muthoni, Y., Gariseb, R., & Ramalepe, L. M. (2024). Psychosocial
correlates of LGBTQ+ experiences in selected African countries: Reimagining LGBTIQ+ research. Journal of
Social Issues.
Monro, S. (2020). Sexual and gender diversities: Implications for LGBTQ Studies. Journal of Homosexuality, 67(3),
315–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2018.1528079
Morgenroth, T., & Ryan, M. K. (2021). The effects of gender trouble: An integrative theoretical framework of the
perpetuation and disruption of the gender/sex binary. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(6), 1113–1142.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620902442
Morrison, M. A., Bishop, C. J., & Morrison, T. G. (2019). A systematic review of the psychometric properties of
composite LGBT prejudice and discrimination scales. Journal of Homosexuality, 66(4), 549–570. https://doi.org/
10.1080/00918369.2017.1422935
Muthoni, Y. (2022). LGBTIQ+ inclusion: Strategies for Africa by Africa. Tijdschrift voor Genderstudies, 25(3), 267–
275. https://doi.org/10.5117/TVGN2022.3.006.MUTH
Nabors, N. A., Hall, R. L., Miville,M. L., Nettles, R., Pauling,M. L., & Ragsdale, B. L. (2001). Special article:Multiple
minority group oppression: Divided we stand?. Journal of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association, 5, 101–105.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011652808415
Nadal, K. L. (2016). The intersection of queer theory and empirical methods: Visions for CLAGS, the center for
LGBTQ studies.Women’s Studies Quarterly, 44(3), 301–305. https://doi.org/10.1353/wsq.2016.0060
Najmabadi, A. (2011). Verdicts of science, rulings of faith: Transgender/sexuality in contemporary Iran. Social
Research: An International Quarterly, 78(2), 533–556. https://doi.org/10.1353/sor.2011.0020
Nduna,M.,Mthombeni, A.,Mavhandu-Mudzusi, A.H., &Mogotsi, I. (2017). Studying sexuality: LGBTI experiences
in institutions of higher education in Southern Africa. South African Journal of Higher Education, 31(4), 1–13.
https://doi.org/10.20853/31-4-1330
Nyanzi, S. (2013). Dismantling reifiedAfrican culture through localized homosexualities inUganda.Culture,Health
& Sexuality, 15(8), 952–967. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691058.2013.798684
OHCHR. (2024). Intersex people. Retrieved from https://www.ohchr.org/en/sexual-orientation-and-gender-
identity/intersex-people
Office of theHigh Commissioner for HumanRights. (2015). Free & Equal Campaign Fact Sheet: Intersex. Retrieved
from: https://www.unfe.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/UNFE-Intersex.pdf
Parent, M. C., DeBlaere, C., & Moradi, B. (2013). Approaches to research on intersectionality: Perspectives on
gender, LGBT, and racial/ethnic identities. Sex Roles, 68, 639–645. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-013-0283-2
Pellicane, M. J., & Ciesla, J. A. (2022). Associations between minority stress, depression, and suicidal ideation and
attempts in transgender and gender diverse (TGD) individuals: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical
Psychology Review, 91, 102113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2021.102113
Pérez, M., & Radi, B. (2020). Current challenges of North/South relations in gay-lesbian and queer studies. Journal
of Homosexuality, 67(7), 965–989. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2019.1582218
 15404560, 2024, 3, D
ow
nloaded from
 https://spssi.onlinelibrary.w
iley.com
/doi/10.1111/josi.12643 by C
A
PE
S, W
iley O
nline L
ibrary on [21/11/2024]. See the T
erm
s and C
onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com
/term
s-and-conditions) on W
iley O
nline L
ibrary for rules of use; O
A
 articles are governed by the applicable C
reative C
om
m
ons L
icense
https://doi.org/10.3798/tia.1937-0237.1826
https://doi.org/10.57814/2rv3-kf42
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-4469.2003.tb00206.x
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-4469.2003.tb00206.x
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674
https://doi.org/10.1089/lgbt.2019.0145
https://doi.org/10.1089/lgbt.2019.0145
https://doi.org/10.1080/00207659.2021.1939946https://doi.org/10.1080/00207659.2021.1939946
https://doi.org/10.1111/josl.12241
https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2018.1528079
https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620902442
https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2017.1422935
https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2017.1422935
https://doi.org/10.5117/TVGN2022.3.006.MUTH
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011652808415
https://doi.org/10.1353/wsq.2016.0060
https://doi.org/10.1353/sor.2011.0020
https://doi.org/10.20853/31-4-1330
https://doi.org/10.1080/13691058.2013.798684
https://www.ohchr.org/en/sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity/intersex-people
https://www.ohchr.org/en/sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity/intersex-people
https://www.unfe.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/UNFE-Intersex.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-013-0283-2
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2021.102113
https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2019.1582218
840 HÄSSLER et al.
Pew Research Center. (2020). The Global Divide on Homosexuality Persists. Retrieved from https://www.
pewresearch.org/global/2020/06/25/global-divide-on-homosexuality-persists/
Phillips, J., & Yi, J. (2020). Queer communities and activism in South Korea: Periphery-Center currents. Journal of
Homosexuality, 67(14), 1948–1973. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2019.1616432
Puar, J. K. (2018). Terrorist assemblages: Homonationalism in queer times. Duke University Press. https://doi.org/
10.1215/9780822371755
Purdie-Vaughns, V., & Eibach, R. P. (2008). Intersectional invisibility: The distinctive advantages and disadvantages
of multiple subordinate-group identities. Sex Roles, 59, 377–391. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008-9424-4
Quinan, C. L., & Hunt, M. (2021). Non-binary gender markers: Mobility, migration, and media reception in
Europe and beyond. European Journal of Women’s Studies, Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/
13505068211024891
Readsura Decolonial Editorial Collective. (2022). Psychology as a site for decolonial analysis. Journal of Social
Issues, 78(2), 255–277. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12524
Remedios, J. D., & Snyder, S. H. (2018). Intersectional oppression: Multiple stigmatized identities and perceptions
of invisibility, discrimination, and stereotyping. Journal of Social Issues, 74(2), 265–281. https://doi.org/10.1111/
josi.12268
Reygan, F., Henderson, N., & Khan, J. (2022). “I’m black, a woman, disabled and lesbian”: LGBT ageing and care
services at the intersections in South Africa. Sexualities, 25(1-2), 63–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363460720975322
Ritchie, J. (2015). Pinkwashing, homonationalism, and Israel–Palestine: The conceits of queer theory and the
politics of the ordinary. Antipode, 47(3), 616–634. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12100
Roberts, S. O., Bareket-Shavit, C., Dollins, F. A., Goldie, P. D., & Mortenson, E. (2020). Racial inequality in psycho-
logical research: Trends of the past and recommendations for the future. Perspectives on Psychological Science,
15(6), 1295–1309. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620927709
Roselló-Peñaloza, M. (2018).NO BODY: Clinical constructions of gender and transsexuality-pathologisation, violence
and deconstruction. Routledge.
RSFL. (2021, November 25). Hbtqi. https://www.rfsl.se/hbtqi-fakta/hbtq/
Saeidzadeh, Z. (2019). Understanding socio-legal complexities of sex change in postrevolutionary Iran.Transgender
Studies Quarterly, 6(1), 80–102. https://doi.org/10.1215/23289252-7253510
Smalley, K. B.,Warren, J. C., &Barefoot, K.N. (2015). Barriers to care and psychological distress differences between
bisexual and gay men and women. Journal of Bisexuality, 15(2), 230–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/15299716.2015.
1025176
Smith, D. E. (2018). Homophobic and transphobic violence against youth: The Jamaican context. International
Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 23(2), 250–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673843.2017.1336106
Streed Jr, C.G., Perlson, J. E., Abrams,M. P., &Lett, E. (2023). On,with, by—Advancing transgender health research
and clinical practice. Health Equity, 7(1), 161–165. https://doi.org/10.1089/heq.2022.0146
Suen, L. W., Lunn, M. R., Katuzny, K., Finn, S., Duncan, L., Sevelius, J., Flentje, A., Capriotti, M. R., Lubensky, M.
E., Hunt, C., Weber, S., Bibbins-Domingo, K., & Obedin-Maliver, J. (2020). What sexual and gender minority
people want researchers to know about sexual orientation and gender identity questions: A qualitative study.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 49, 2301–2318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-020-01810-y
Sweigart, M. M., Galván-Hernández, D., Hässler, T., Hegarty, P., Kite, M. E., Ofosu, E., Ünsal, B. C., & Eisner,
L. (2024). Understanding variations in LGBTIQ+ acceptance across space and time: The importance of norm
perceptions and political dynamics. Journal of Social Issues.
Thalmayer, A. G., Toscanelli, C., & Arnett, J. J. (2021). The neglected 95% revisited: Is American psychology
becoming less American? American Psychologist, 76(1), 116–129. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000622
Thöni, C., Eisner, L., & Hässler, T. (2022). Not straight enough, nor queer enough: Identity denial, stigmatization,
and negative affect among bisexual and pansexual people. Psychology of Sexual Orientation andGender Diversity,
Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000606
Tuck, E. (2009). Suspending damage: A letter to communities.Harvard Educational Review, 79(3), 409–428. https://
doi.org/10.17763/haer.79.3.n0016675661t3n15
Ummak, E., Türken, S., & Keles, S. (2023). Where to belong: Being a sexual and ethnic minority group member in
Norway. Sex Roles, 1–13. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-023-01370-0
United Nations Human Rights Council 48th session Joint Statement on the Human Rights of Intersex Per-
sons. (2021). Retrieved from: https://www.bmeia.gv.at/oev-genf/speeches/alle/2021/10/united-nations-human-
rights-council-48th-session-joint-statement-on-the-human-rights-of-intersex-persons/
 15404560, 2024, 3, D
ow
nloaded from
 https://spssi.onlinelibrary.w
iley.com
/doi/10.1111/josi.12643 by C
A
PE
S, W
iley O
nline L
ibrary on [21/11/2024]. See the T
erm
s and C
onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com
/term
s-and-conditions) on W
iley O
nline L
ibrary for rules of use; O
A
 articles are governed by the applicable C
reative C
om
m
ons L
icense
https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2020/06/25/global-divide-on-homosexuality-persists/
https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2020/06/25/global-divide-on-homosexuality-persists/
https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2019.1616432
https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822371755
https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822371755
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008-9424-4
https://doi.org/10.1177/13505068211024891
https://doi.org/10.1177/13505068211024891
https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12524
https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12268
https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12268
https://doi.org/10.1177/1363460720975322
https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12100
https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620927709
https://www.rfsl.se/hbtqi-fakta/hbtq/
https://doi.org/10.1215/23289252-7253510
https://doi.org/10.1080/15299716.2015.1025176
https://doi.org/10.1080/15299716.2015.1025176
https://doi.org/10.1080/02673843.2017.1336106
https://doi.org/10.1089/heq.2022.0146
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-020-01810-y
https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000622
https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000606
https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.79.3.n0016675661t3n15
https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.79.3.n0016675661t3n15
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-023-01370-0
https://www.bmeia.gv.at/oev-genf/speeches/alle/2021/10/united-nations-human-rights-council-48th-session-joint-statement-on-the-human-rights-of-intersex-persons/
https://www.bmeia.gv.at/oev-genf/speeches/alle/2021/10/united-nations-human-rights-council-48th-session-joint-statement-on-the-human-rights-of-intersex-persons/
Reimagining LGBTIQ+ research 841
van Anders, S. M. (2015). Beyond sexual orientation: Integrating gender/sex and diverse sexualities via sexual
configurations theory. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44(5), 1177–1213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-015-0490-8
van der Toorn,J., Bracco, S. E., Gaitho, W., Ryan, W. S., Horne, S. G., Anderson, J. R., & Leskinen, E. A. (2024).
Inclusion and protection in tension: Reflections on gathering sexual orientation and gender identity data in the
workplace. Journal of Social Issues.
Velasco, K. (2020). Transnational backlash and the deinstitutionalization of liberal norms: LGBT+ rights in a
contested world. International Studies Quarterly, 64(1), 120–132. https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqz075
Velasco,K. (2023a).Opposition avoidance ormutual engagement? The interdependent dynamics between opposing
transnational LGBT+ networks. Social Forces, 101(4), 2087–2116. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/soac068
Velasco, K. (2023b). Transnational backlash and the deinstitutionalization of liberal norms: LGBT+ rights in a
contested world. American Journal of Sociology, 128(5), 1381–1429. https://doi.org/10.1086/724724
Walch, S. E., Bernal, D. R., Gibson, L., Murray, L., Thien, S., & Steinnecker, K. (2020). Systematic review of the con-
tent and methods of empirical psychological research on LGBTQ and SGM populations in the newmillennium.
Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 7(4), 433–454. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000364
Wallace, B. C., & Santacruz, E. (2017). Addictions and substance abuse in the LGBT community: New approaches.
In Ruth R., & Santacruz E. (Eds.). LGBT psychology andmental health: Emerging research and advances, 153–175.
Ward, M., & Kim, E. K. (2022). Biden signs historic bill codifying same-sex and interracial marriage. Politico.
Retrieved from: https://www.politico.com/news/2022/12/13/biden-s-codifying-same-sex-interracial-marriage-
00073762
Winslow, S., & Davis, S. N. (2016). Gender inequality across the academic life course. Sociology Compass, 10(5),
404–416. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12372
Winter, S., Diamond,M., Green, J., Karasic, D., Reed, T.,Whittle, S., &Wylie, K. (2016). Transgender people: Health
at the margins of society. The Lancet, 388(10042), 390–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00683-8
How to cite this article: Hässler, T., Fogwell, N. T., Gonzalez, A., Anderson, J. R., &
Atwood, S. (2024). Reimagining LGBTIQ+ research – Acknowledging differences across
subpopulations, methods, and countries. Journal of Social Issues, 80, 821–842.
https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12643.
AUTH OR BIOGRAPH IES
Tabea Hässler is a Senior Lecturer at the University of Zurich. Tabea’s research focuses on
responses to inequalities among members of diverse advantaged and disadvantaged groups
in the LGBTIQ+ and ethnic contexts and their support for collective action toward greater
social equality. Tabea’s work is influenced by research stays and visits in several countries and
collaborations with scholars around the globe. A central aim of Tabea’s work is to promote
social justice within and beyond academia. Therefore, Tabea believes it is important to reduce
systematic barriers both within science and beyond the realm of science and to disseminate
the findings to a broad audience.
Nicole Theiss Fogwell, PhD is a Postdoctoral Fellow at Jackson Health System in affiliation
with the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine. She received her PhD in Counsel-
ing Psychology from the University of Akron, after completing her predoctoral internship at
Henry Ford Health System. Nicole’s research focuses on the experiences of sexual minority
women and trans and nonbinary people as related to mental health and the mental health-
care system, with a particular interest in measure development and revision. Her dissertation
 15404560, 2024, 3, D
ow
nloaded from
 https://spssi.onlinelibrary.w
iley.com
/doi/10.1111/josi.12643 by C
A
PE
S, W
iley O
nline L
ibrary on [21/11/2024]. See the T
erm
s and C
onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com
/term
s-and-conditions) on W
iley O
nline L
ibrary for rules of use; O
A
 articles are governed by the applicable C
reative C
om
m
ons L
icense
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-015-0490-8
https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqz075
https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/soac068
https://doi.org/10.1086/724724
https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000364
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/12/13/biden-s-codifying-same-sex-interracial-marriage-00073762
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/12/13/biden-s-codifying-same-sex-interracial-marriage-00073762
https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12372
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00683-8
https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12643
842 HÄSSLER et al.
project involves the development of a measure of patient-reported therapist trans counseling
competence.
Alejandra Gonzalez, PhD, is an Assistant Professor in the School of Psychology at Xavier
University and licensed psychologist in Ohio, U.S. She received her PhD in Counseling Psy-
chology from the University of Akron and completed her pre-doctoral internship at the
Southwest Consortium in Albuquerque, NM. Dr. Gonzalez’s research focuses on the inter-
section of interpersonal trauma and oppression for women, gender and sexual minority
individuals, and Latinx communities. She studies experiences of intimate partner violence,
gender- and ethnoracial-based violence, resilience, and posttraumatic stress disorder, with an
emphasis on community-engaged research.
JoelR.Anderson is a SeniorResearchFellowat theAustralianResearchCentre in Sex,Health
and Society at La Trobe University in Melbourne, Australia. His research typically revolves
around intergroup processes between cis-heterosexual groups and sexual minority and gender
diverse groups, internalized prejudice, queer well-being, and LGBTQA+ conversion practices.
He is a white gay male who acknowledges his social categories privilege him across many
dimensions, and that he has benefitted from being a white individual in Australia (a land that
was colonized by the British Empire at great cost to Australia’s First Nations people).
S. Atwood is a PhD candidate in Psychology and Social Policy at Princeton University and
a junior fellow at the Center for Applied Transgender Studies. Their research explores the
development, perceptions, and implications of gender diversity in adults and children with
a specific interest in the ways in which cisgender people’s perceptions influence the lives of
gender diverse individuals. Additionally, they value human diversity and are committed to
practicing allyship that empowers individuals of all identities and backgrounds at all levels of
research.
 15404560, 2024, 3, D
ow
nloaded from
 https://spssi.onlinelibrary.w
iley.com
/doi/10.1111/josi.12643 by C
A
PE
S, W
iley O
nline L
ibrary on [21/11/2024]. See the T
erm
s and C
onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com
/term
s-and-conditions) on W
iley O
nline L
ibrary for rules of use; O
A
 articles are governed by the applicable C
reative C
om
m
ons L
icense
	Reimagining LGBTIQ+ research - Acknowledging differences across subpopulations, methods, and countries
	Abstract
	INTRODUCTION
	SECTION II: THE LGBTIQ+ COMMUNITY-SUBPOPULATIONS WITHIN THE ACRONYM
	SECTION III: METHODOLOGICAL CHALLENGES
	SECTION IV: CROSS-CULTURAL DIFFERENCES
	ORGANIZATION OF THIS ISSUE
	Contributions focusing on section II: the LGBTIQ+ community-subpopulations within the acronym
	Contributions focusing on section III: methodological challenges
	Contributions focusing on section IV: cross-cultural differences
	CONCLUSION
	ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
	CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT
	AUTHOR’S POSITIONALITY
	ORCID
	REFERENCES
	AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIESidentity does not (exclusively) match their assigned sex at
birth, such as nonbinary, two-spirit, and/or trans people.
Gender identity Gender is distinct from sex. Gender identity is a term used to describe a person’s internal
sense of their gender.
Heterosexual A term used to describe men only attracted to women, and women only attracted to men.
Also referred to as straight.
Homosexual A term used to describe people who are attracted to people of same gender and/or sex.
Note: While the term homosexual holds a negative connotation to some LGBTIQ+ people in
the U.S. due to its previous use as a diagnosis of pathology, it is considered an empowering
term in some other countries.
Intersex A term used to describe people whose sex characteristics differ from those typically
expected of men or women.
Lesbian woman A woman who is attracted to other women.
LGBTIQ+ An abbreviation used to refer to all people who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans,
intersex, queer/questioning, or as having any other minority sexual orientation or gender
identity.
Note: Acronyms vary across time and context.
Nonbinary An umbrella term used to describe gender identities where the individual does not
identify exclusively as a man or a woman. There are many categories included within
this, such as agender, genderqueer, and gender fluid. Some nonbinary people may
identify as trans, others may not.
Pansexual A term used to describe a person who is attracted to people regardless of their gender.
Queer An umbrella term used to describe any sexual orientation or gender identity that is not
heterosexual or cisgender. For example, people who are lesbian, gay, asexual, or trans may
identify as queer.
Note: Once considered a demeaning slur for being gay, “queer” is being reclaimed by some as
a self-affirming term.
Questioning A term used to refer to individuals in the process of determining their sexual orientation
and/or gender identity.
Sex Sex is different from gender. Sex is assigned at birth based on a newborn’s physical and
biological characteristics, such as chromosomes, hormone prevalence, and anatomy.
Generally, a newborn’s sex is assigned male or female, though some regions and countries
provide a third option for those who are intersex.
(Continues)
 15404560, 2024, 3, D
ow
nloaded from
 https://spssi.onlinelibrary.w
iley.com
/doi/10.1111/josi.12643 by C
A
PE
S, W
iley O
nline L
ibrary on [21/11/2024]. See the T
erm
s and C
onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com
/term
s-and-conditions) on W
iley O
nline L
ibrary for rules of use; O
A
 articles are governed by the applicable C
reative C
om
m
ons L
icense
824 HÄSSLER et al.
TABLE 1 (Continued)
Sexual minority
people
Individuals who do not identify as heterosexual, such as those who are gay, lesbian,
bisexual, or pansexual people.
Sexual orientation A term often used as an umbrella term to describe who a person is emotionally,
romantically, or sexually attracted to. Importantly, people might differ in their emotional,
romantic, and sexual orientation.
Two-spirit A term used in Native American cultures to describe a person whose gender identity is
neither male nor female. A sacred and historical identity, two-spirit can include but is by
no means limited to LGBTQ+ identities.
Trans An umbrella term used to describe people who have a gender identity that is different
from the gender assigned at birth. Nonbinary people may or may not consider themselves
to be trans.
Note: The definitions belong to the LGBTIQ+ community and might change over time and across contexts.
and North America), representing a range of sexual orientations, gender identities, races, ethnic-
ities, nationalities, ability statuses, socio-economic backgrounds, career stages, and their various
intersections. The collective “Reimagining of LGBTIQ+ Research” is a central goal of this special
issue. We aimed for our list of contributors to be diverse across social categories and geograph-
ical locations because this is a necessary prerequisite to fully capturing nuances in the ways in
which LGBTIQ+ research is being conducted around the globe. This list includes scholars from
underrepresented countries and continents, non-native English speakers, individuals across the
sexuality and gender spectrums, early career scholars, racially and ethnically minoritized schol-
ars, scholars living with disabilities, and more. By intentionally giving space to the often-silenced
voices that experience disadvantages in the global academic system (see also BouZeineddine et al.,
2022; Durrheim, 2023; Ledgerwood et al., 2022; Roberts al., 2020; Streed et al., 2023; Winslow &
Davis, 2016), we intend to widen the perspective of this special issue to a truly global frame.
Being the Change We Wish to See—Overcoming Barriers Within the Academic System
The EASP-SPSSI small group meeting on “Advancing LGBTIQ+ Research” (to learn more:
https://www.easp.eu/news/itm/?id=1670) that sparked this special issue brought together a
diverse set of scholars from 15 countries and five continents and fostered discussions and collabo-
rations beyond traditional boundaries (e.g., countries, language, career stages, gender). However,
it could not transcend certain structural barriers (e.g., financial resources, mobility restrictions)
which prevented the participation of several interested and talented scholars. To counter the lack
of representation, we invited scholars from Africa (Mogosti et al., 2024), Asia (Cherian et al.,
2024), and Latin America (Barrientos et al., 2024) to contribute to this special issue as to avoid per-
petuating the Western-centric bias prevalent in scientific literature (Bou Zeineddine et al., 2022;
Thalmayer et al., 2021).
Several of these contributing scholars were disappointed that they were not able to partici-
pate in the initial meeting and spoke candidly about the different economic and social realities
within their respective continents. While their contributions to this special issue serve as a first
step toward the greater integration of underrepresented scholars, further actions are needed to
reduce disparities within the global academic system. Indeed, past work has demonstrated and
critically examined the many ways in which the global academic system marginalizes scholars
and samples from the so-called “Global South” (Abo-Zena et al., 2022; Bou Zeineddine et al., 2022;
Kahalon et al., 2022). Furthermore, existing literature has found a clear pattern of U.S. dominance
across authorship, editorial boards, and samples in the field of psychology (Arnett, 2008; Thal-
mayer et al., 2021). For instance, analyzing the articles published in six top psychology journals
 15404560, 2024, 3, D
ow
nloaded from
 https://spssi.onlinelibrary.w
iley.com
/doi/10.1111/josi.12643 by C
A
PE
S, W
iley O
nline L
ibrary on [21/11/2024]. See the T
erm
s and C
onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com
/term
s-and-conditions) on W
iley O
nline L
ibrary for rules of use; O
A
 articles are governed by the applicable C
reative C
om
m
ons L
icense
https://www.easp.eu/news/itm/?id=1670
Reimagining LGBTIQ+ research 825
from 2014 to 2018, Thalmayer et al. (2021) found that on average, nearly two thirds of all authors
and samples were based in the U.S.. The greatest barriers to publishing in leading journals, how-
ever, exist for scholars from African, Asian, Central American, and South American nations, as
well as for scholars from many Oceanian, Eastern European, and Southern European countries
(see alsoMuthoni, 2022).When samples from these regions are included, the research is often con-
ducted by researchers outside of these regions, raising concerns of ownership and local credibility
(Muthoni, 2022; Nduna et al., 2017; Pérez & Radi, 2020).
For countries outside of the U.S., residing in an English-speaking country seems to emerge as a
predictor of success. Unsurprisingly, barriers regarding languagewere a recurrent theme through-
out the EASP-SPSSI workshop and the writing,editing, and review process of this special issue.
These issues are reflected in the field of psychology more broadly where non-native speakers are
expected to conform toEnglish, the lingua franca in academia,while native English speakers often
appear blind to the privilege that publishing and presenting research in their native language
allows (see also Amano et al., 2023; Bou Zeineddine et al., 2022; Pérez & Radi, 2020; Readsura
Decolonial Editorial Collective, 2022).
These power imbalances within academia create barriers that reinforce inequalities within
academia and can make equitable cross-national research partnerships and activism difficult
(Bou Zeineddine et al., 2022; Gerstein & Ægisdóttir, 2012; Pérez & Radi, 2020). The picture is
further complicated when scholars collaborate across national borders with the aim of advanc-
ing LGBTIQ+ rights. LGBTIQ+ scholars from more accepting countries, while still experiencing
overt and covert discrimination in their own contexts, are granted freedoms (e.g., open expression
of identity, less government censorship) and resources (e.g., funding for LGBTIQ+ projects, ease
of access to LGBTIQ+ samples) denied to their counterparts in other nations.
To promote greater inclusivity and equity in the global academic community, it is essential
to redistribute resources, create collaborative initiatives that support underrepresented scholars,
and diversify citations and syllabi. This can be achieved through joint funding schemes where
wealthier countries provide financial support for international research partners, such as the
Swiss SPIRIT scheme, as well as through subsidized workshops, research stays, travel grants,
and logistical assistance for scholars at risk, as seen in programs like scholars at risk or the
support for scholars under threat schemes. Prioritizing the inclusion of work from scholars situ-
ated in Africa, Asia, Eastern and Southern Europe, and Latin America is crucial for diversifying
citations and syllabi.
To foster meaningful social change toward greater equality, it is important to critically exam-
ine and address the existing inequalities within the global academic system. Despite structural
barriers, individual scholars have the power to initiate positive change. For instance, initiatives
like the Collective Action Network facilitate regular online meetings that allows scholars world-
wide to present their work, the SPSP pre-conference on “Advancing LGBTIQ+ Research Across
the Globe” is collaboratively organized by scholars from all continents to enhance the represen-
tativeness of the global academic community, and the “(Re)Searching Diversity” podcast makes
work on and fromminoritized scholars accessible. Embracing international collaborations offers
all participants opportunities to broaden their perspectives, learn from diverse viewpoints, and
engage in stimulating and open dialogues.
We call for a research community that is more inclusive of voices from underrepresented
groups, more aware of unequal power dynamics within academia (e.g., based on access to
resources and networks, language, mobility restrictions, career status, minoritized statuses), and
more willing to reduce these disparities within the global academic system to be the change
needed in the world. We believe that more diverse voices, approaches, and ideas are essential to
 15404560, 2024, 3, D
ow
nloaded from
 https://spssi.onlinelibrary.w
iley.com
/doi/10.1111/josi.12643 by C
A
PE
S, W
iley O
nline L
ibrary on [21/11/2024]. See the T
erm
s and C
onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com
/term
s-and-conditions) on W
iley O
nline L
ibrary for rules of use; O
A
 articles are governed by the applicable C
reative C
om
m
ons L
icense
https://www.snf.ch/de/nlghrhyzbD90TM9D/foerderung/programme/spirit
https://www.scholarsatrisk.org/about/
https://ispp.org/about/scholars-under-threat/
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCShQDnxXO68wKB0EFWy81mA
https://www.researchingdiversity.com/
826 HÄSSLER et al.
improving the quality of science and the translation of scientific findings into real-world applica-
tions that aim to foster social equity beyond group divides. By having contributors from all major
continents, this special issue invites the reader to broaden their perspective on LGBTIQ+ research
and learn from the experiences and knowledge of scholars across the world.
SECTION II: THE LGBTIQ+ COMMUNITY—SUBPOPULATIONS
WITHIN THE ACRONYM
The LGBTIQ+ community consists of various sub-communities, differing in sexual orientation,
gender identity/expression, variations of sex characteristics, and their various intersections.While
pioneering LGBTIQ+ research focused almost exclusively on gay and lesbian people, over time,
research has become more inclusive of bisexual, trans, queer/questioning people, and, to a lesser
extent, intersex people (Clarke & Peel, 2007; Ellis et al., 2019; see also Barrientos et al., 2024). Con-
temporary researchers must be intentional about when to focus on the superordinate LGBTIQ+
community and when to highlight differences between specific subgroups of LGBTIQ+ people,
and to carefully consider how to account for intersecting identities such as ability status, caste, eth-
nicity, migration background, race, religion, and socio-economic background (see Cherian et al.,
2024; Fournier-Pereira, 2014; Klysing et al., 2024; Purdie-Vaughns & Eibach, 2008; Remedios, &
Snyder, 2018; Ummak et al., 2023). Scholarsmust alsomake decisions about assumptions underly-
ing their research—such aswhether to use an essentialist or social constructionist approach—and
weigh the differing implications of these decisions for subgroupswithin theLGBTIQ+ community
(see Bartels et al., 2024). By opening with a section on the LGBTIQ+ community subgroups, this
special issue aims to provide amore complex and nuanced understanding of the lived experiences
of diverse LGBTIQ+ people.
The experiences of LGBTIQ+ people vary widely based on their identities (e.g., sexual orienta-
tion, gender identity, and/or assigned sex) and geographic location. For instance, in much of the
world trans and gender diverse people are likely to be the targets of physical and sexual violence,
and are more likely to experience discrimination in housing, employment, and healthcare and
experience high rates of social rejection from friends and family (Edelman, 2020;Hässler&Eisner,
2022; Leivas et al., 2023; Lewis et al., 2017). As a result, many trans and gender diverse individuals
experience negative life outcomes such as economic insecurity, unemployment, and homeless-
ness leaving them especially at risk for poor physical and mental health as well as high rates of
suicidality (Grant et al., 2011; Hughto et al., 2015; Pellicane & Ciesla, 2022; Winter et al., 2016).
By contrast, in other parts of the world same-gender relationships are punishable by imprison-
ment, deathwhile transgender identity is recognized via state-sponsored sex reassignment surgery
(Najmabadi, 2011; Saeidzadeh, 2019).
Additionally, discrimination and marginalization toward different subpopulations within the
LGBTIQ+ community manifest in different ways. For instance, injustices toward intersex peo-
ple remain largely underexplored in research, and as a result, intersex children continue to be
subjected to irreversible, non-consensual medical interventions that may have negative effects on
their health and well-being (Crocetti et al., 2020, 2023; Machado et al., 2016). In contrast, gen-
der diverse people are often denied access to medical care that would bring their bodies more in
line with their gender identity (Lang, 2021; McLean, 2021; Ward & Kim, 2022). The power and
hypocrisy of hetero and cisnormative ideologies inWestern countries are evident in the dominant
assertion that young trans and/or nonbinary people should wait until at least adulthood before
accessing affirming medical interventions while simultaneously placing intense pressure on par-
 15404560, 2024, 3, D
ow
nloaded from
 https://spssi.onlinelibrary.wiley.com
/doi/10.1111/josi.12643 by C
A
PE
S, W
iley O
nline L
ibrary on [21/11/2024]. See the T
erm
s and C
onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com
/term
s-and-conditions) on W
iley O
nline L
ibrary for rules of use; O
A
 articles are governed by the applicable C
reative C
om
m
ons L
icense
Reimagining LGBTIQ+ research 827
ents of children with intersex variations to authorize “normalizing” surgeries at ages where the
child cannot possibly consent (Clune-Taylor, 2019).
Differences also exist within broader subgroups. Regarding sexualminorities, bi- and pansexual
people experience more discrimination, less support, and worse physical and mental health than
lesbian women and gay men (Smalley et al., 2015; Thöni et al., 2022). Bi- and pansexual women
in particular experience a myriad of negative health and well-being outcomes, including experi-
encing the highest rates of poverty, intimate partner violence, and sexual violence compared to
all other sexual orientations (Chen et al., 2020). Furthermore, bi- and pansexual people continue
to experience discrimination from heterosexual as well as gay and lesbian people (Anderson &
Maugeri, 2022; Thöni et al., 2022).
Differences in social power between subpopulations of the LGBTIQ+ community are further
evidenced by researchers’ and policymakers’ attention, or lack thereof. Most affirming research
and activism regarding LGBTIQ+ people still target gay and lesbian persons while overlooking
trans, nonbinary, intersex, bisexual and/or pansexual people. Even within these identity groups,
experiences can differ sharply based on gender or sex, the relative power of one’s racial, ethnic,
migration background, and/or religious group, ability, caste, and access to economic resources
(Reygan et al., 2022; Wallace & Santacruz, 2017). LGBTIQ+ people belonging to one or more addi-
tional minoritized groups—such as LGBTIQ+ people of color in predominantly white spaces or
LGBTIQ+ people living with a disability—are often marginalized in both the LGBTIQ+ commu-
nity and their other minoritized group/s, in addition to the cisgender, heterosexual, and endosex
majority (Barnett et al., 2019, Conover & Israel, 2019; Nabors et al., 2001). This complexity of iden-
tity experiences is often not adequately captured in LGBTIQ+ research (see also Marshall et al.,
2022; Suen et al., 2020) and might restrict the usefulness of the LGBTIQ+ acronym in describing
groupmembership (for a discussion see Klysing et al., 2024;Monro, 2020). Throughout the special
issue, we make the case for an ongoing dialogue to address the complexity of lived experiences in
research and policy efforts to better protect those who are most vulnerable within the LGBTIQ+
community (see also Bettergarcia et al., 2024; Parent et al., 2013). Furthermore, we encourage
researchers and practitioners to increase their attention on factors that promote well-being and
flourishing among LGBTIQ+ people across the world (Bettergarcia et al., 2024; Cherian et al.,
2024; Cipollina et al., 2024; Mogotsi et al., 2024).
SECTION III: METHODOLOGICAL CHALLENGES
This section of the special issue examines current methodological challenges in LGBTIQ+
research, including issues with measurement, ethical considerations, and study design. Three
major issues emerge in the special issue regardingmeasurement. First, measurement instruments
used in LGBTIQ+ research are often developed and validated with cisgender heterosexual endo-
sex majority samples and then applied to LGBTIQ+ populations without establishing validity
properties for this sample. This raises issues regarding the validity of the evidence generated under
these conditions (Li et al., 2024, see also Morrison et al., 2019). Additionally, concerns related to
translation as well as how to adapt these scales to account for intersectional identities further
complicate the process of scale development and validation (Kemer et al., 2017; Parent et al., 2013;
Purdie-Vaughns & Eibach, 2008).
Second, gender identity, sexual orientation, and physical sex characteristics are complex and
(to some degree) fluid. For example, people’s sexual attraction and behavior might differ from
their romantic attraction and/or their sexual identity. A personmight be romantically attracted to
 15404560, 2024, 3, D
ow
nloaded from
 https://spssi.onlinelibrary.w
iley.com
/doi/10.1111/josi.12643 by C
A
PE
S, W
iley O
nline L
ibrary on [21/11/2024]. See the T
erm
s and C
onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com
/term
s-and-conditions) on W
iley O
nline L
ibrary for rules of use; O
A
 articles are governed by the applicable C
reative C
om
m
ons L
icense
828 HÄSSLER et al.
people regardless of their gender (i.e., panromantic) butmight experience little or no sexual attrac-
tion (i.e., asexual1). Current surveys, however, typically conflate sexual and romantic attractions.
In addition, both cisgender/heterosexual and LGBTIQ+ people might be single, have one or mul-
tiple partners, engage in closed or open relationships, or have diverse family models (e.g., de Brito
Silva et al., 2023). Researchers often fail to adequately ask questions that can effectively pull apart
these nuances. These oversights can result in sections of the LGBTIQ+ community being mis-
represented, conflated with other groups, or erased altogether (for a discussion, see Lyons et al.,
2020, 2021). Thus, there is a strong need to consider these nuances in future LGBTIQ+ research,
but that is beyond the scope of the current contribution.
Finally, different racial/ethnic, national, and/or age groups might use different terminologies
(Costa et al., 2013). For example,while the term“homosexual” holds negative connotation tomany
LGBTIQ+ people in the U.S. due to its previous use as a diagnosis of pathology, it is considered
an empowering term in other countries. To illustrate, the Swedish acronym does not differentiate
between lesbian and gay but instead includes “h” for homosexual to highlight this joint iden-
tity across gender groups (HBTQI+; RSFL, 2021). In a similar vein, older generations in the U.S.
and Europe often consider the term “queer” a slur, while younger persons often see the term as
empowering and useful, both for a specific identity category and an umbrella term for LGBTIQ+
people broadly. Compare this to South Korea, where the term “queer” was directly imported and
is the word of choice used to describe the LGBTIQ+ community across age groups (Phillips & Yi,
2020).
Regarding research ethics, several tensions may emerge while conducting research with a vul-
nerable population such as the LGBTIQ+ community. While collecting data on the LGBTIQ+
population might help to foster visibility, document discrimination, and track the effectiveness
of policies, these data might make respondents identifiable and put LGBTIQ+ people at risk
(van der Toorn et al., 2024), particularly in hostile environments and legal contexts that crimi-
nalize LGBTIQ+ identity. The same applies to open science practices such as sharing collected
data publicly—while this may increase the transparency of research, it runs the concurrent risk
of undermining the anonymity of participants. Providing open data on minoritized populations
may also run counter to community-engaged approaches such as participatory research prac-
tices (see Leskinen et al., 2024). Soliciting feedback from the studied population and engaging in
closer collaborationswith practitionerswhowork closelywith LGBTIQ+ persons, however,might
be key in encouraging researchers to shift their attention from the current damaged-centered
focus to a strength-centered focus aiming to contribute to the overall well-being and thriving of
LGBTIQ+ people (Cherian et al., 2024; Cipollina et al., 2024, Mogotsi et al., 2024). Researchers,
therefore, need to carefully consider the advantages and disadvantages of collaborative research
practices, which constructs they will measure (and which tools are appropriate to do so), and how
to appropriately store and sharedata resulting from research with LGBTIQ+ participants.
Finally, regarding study design, most LGBTIQ+ research to date has employed cross-sectional
approaches to data collection and has typically focused on one country or a specific region within
a country (Walch et al., 2020). As a result, existing research presents a variety of challenges in
understanding the experiences of LGBTIQ+ persons across time and context. An increase in the
range of methods and sampling techniques is needed for researchers to move the field forward
into an accurate and rigorous evidence-based understanding of LGBTIQ+ lives and experiences
1While gender and sexuality diversity have been recognized as natural variations of human diversity in the DSM-5 (Amer-
ican Psychiatric Association, 2013; OHCHR, 2024), a significant amount of asexual people report that health practitioners
attribute their asexuality to a health condition (Flanagan et al., 2020).
 15404560, 2024, 3, D
ow
nloaded from
 https://spssi.onlinelibrary.w
iley.com
/doi/10.1111/josi.12643 by C
A
PE
S, W
iley O
nline L
ibrary on [21/11/2024]. See the T
erm
s and C
onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com
/term
s-and-conditions) on W
iley O
nline L
ibrary for rules of use; O
A
 articles are governed by the applicable C
reative C
om
m
ons L
icense
Reimagining LGBTIQ+ research 829
(Adamczyk & Liao, 2019). For instance, mixed-method, observational, and visual art methods
approaches (e.g., Cherian, 2018; Roselló-Peñaloza, 2018) are powerful tools that provide a nuanced
understanding of the complex relationships that intersecting identities play in the shared and
distinct experiences of LGBTIQ+ individuals and groups. Such methods have been long valued
in LGBTIQ+ research (Nadal, 2016).
Future research could also consider the use of probability samples (e.g., Meyer et al., 2020)
which could prove useful in increasing the generalizability of the respective target populations.
Further, longitudinal projects such as the Longitudinal Outcomes of Gender Identity in Children
Study, the Swiss LGBTIQ+ Panel, and the Trans Youth Project are particularly desirable, as these
studies provide insight into how human development, social climate, and legal changes affect
LGBTIQ+ people over time. Similarly, gathering newmultinational data or utilizing existing sur-
vey data or indexes such as the World Values Survey, the Afrobarometer, the Eurobarometer,
the Latinobarometer, or the Global Acceptance Index (GAI) might be used to better under-
stand the dynamic interplays between individual characteristics, group characteristics, and the
social context (e.g., Barrientos & Bahamondes, 2022). It is worth noting that the high costs asso-
ciated with longitudinal and/or probability studies combined with the underfunding of many
LGBTIQ+-related research projects serve as a significant barrier to conducting these forms of
research (Coulter et al., 2014). Tomitigate this, funding agencies need to provide funding for large-
scale projects on LGBTIQ+ populations, and scholars should consider joining forces to work on
large-scale projects.
SECTION IV: CROSS-CULTURAL DIFFERENCES
Heeding the call for an increase in multinational data, the final section of the special issue
addresses differences within and across distinct countries/regions. As of 2024, 63 countries
still criminalize consensual same-gender sexual acts (with punishments as severe as the death
penalty), and 14 countries criminalize the gender identity and/or expression of transgender, non-
binary, and/or genderqueer people (Humanity Dignity Trust, 2024; ILGA World, 2023). In terms
of the legal prosecution and protection of LGBTIQ+ people, there are significant differences both
between andwithin continents (Chaux et al., 2021; Corrales, 2017; ILGAWorld, 2023). To illustrate,
half of the countries in Africa, several countries in Asia and the Middle East, and some countries
in Latin America andOceania continue to criminalize consensual same-gender sexual acts. At the
same time, same-gender couples are legally recognized in North America, in many European and
Latin American countries, in Australia and New Zealand in Oceania, in South Africa in Africa,
and in Japan and Taiwan in Asia. Additionally, several countries (e.g., Pakistan, Nepal, Argentina,
Uruguay, New Zealand, Denmark, Germany, Canada, South Africa [partially]) have added non-
binary gender marker options for identity documents such as passports, while nine countries in
Asia and four countries in Africa continue to criminalize transgender identity and/or expression
(Humanity Dignity Trust, 2024; Quinan & Hunt, 2021).
The legal rights of intersex people also vary widely across countries and regions. Recent efforts
to address intersex issues on a global level include the United Nations Human Rights Council
joint statement, signed by 53 nations, that seeks to confront human rights violations against inter-
sex people by combatting discrimination, pathologization, violence, and violations of autonomy
(United Nations Human Rights Council, 2021). However, policies do not always follow symbolic
gestures of support. For example, while the U.S. signed the aforementioned joint statement, cur-
rent federal laws offer no protection against non-consensual medical interventions on intersex
 15404560, 2024, 3, D
ow
nloaded from
 https://spssi.onlinelibrary.w
iley.com
/doi/10.1111/josi.12643 by C
A
PE
S, W
iley O
nline L
ibrary on [21/11/2024]. See the T
erm
s and C
onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com
/term
s-and-conditions) on W
iley O
nline L
ibrary for rules of use; O
A
 articles are governed by the applicable C
reative C
om
m
ons L
icense
https://logicstudy.uk/
https://logicstudy.uk/
https://swiss-lgbtiq-panel.ch/
https://hudl.princeton.edu/research
https://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/wvs.jsp
https://www.afrobarometer.org/
https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/
https://www.latinobarometro.org/lat.jsp
https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/projects/gai/
830 HÄSSLER et al.
children (Jorge et al., 2021). Some notable developments toward implementing legal protections
for intersex people include Australia’s 2013 law that specifies intersex as a protected class and
Malta’s 2015 law that prohibits both discriminations based on sex characteristics as well as surgi-
cal/medical interventions onminors without informed consent (Office of theHighCommissioner
for Human Rights, 2015).
Importantly, these differences between and within continents are not static. Indeed, the land-
scapes for LGBTIQ+ individuals worldwide continue to shift rapidly (Flores, 2021; ILGA World,
2023). While overall levels of acceptance, representation, and legal inclusion have increased in
the past decade, change has not occurred in a unilaterally positive direction (ILGA World, 2023;
Hadler & Symons, 2018; Velasco, 2020). Trends in global data indicate increasing polarization
between countries, such that between 2000 and 2017many historically LGBTIQ+ accepting coun-
tries saw increases in overall acceptance, while the least accepting countries became even less
accepting and countries near the average stayed the same (Flores, 2021). Several countries, includ-
ing Ghana, Uganda, Russia, Lebanon, and the Czech Republic, have seen marked decreases in
acceptance—in some cases, going so far as to criminalize same-gender sexual activity (BBCNews,
2023; PewResearchCenter, 2020). The rise of international anti-LGBTIQ+networks, which quan-
titatively outnumber pro-LGBTIQ+ international organizations, might be an important factor
explaining the backlash in several countries (Velasco, 2023a, 2023b).
These differences in LGBTQ+ acceptance across regions are rooted in historical contexts.
While Western European countries generally exhibit higher acceptance of sexual minorities (Pew
Research Center, 2020), they also have legacies of colonization that imposed their laws and beliefs
on the Global South and East (Merry, 2003). Many societies that once accepted LGBTIQ+ indi-
viduals in pre-colonialtimes now criminalize or exhibit hostility toward these identities (Buckle,
2020; Mogotsi et al., 2024). For instance, Jamaica, which was under British rule from 1665 to 1962,
adopted British anti-homosexuality laws and currently holds negative views toward LGBTIQ+
identities (Smith, 2018; Knowles, 2021). Similar trends are evident in several African nations,
where governments are enacting stricter anti-LGBTIQ+ laws, framed by supporters as a “decolo-
nial project” asserting that such identities are “un-African” (Nyanzi, 2013). However, scholars
argue that a rich history of sexual and gender diversity exists across Africa, attributing current
anti-LGBTIQ+ sentiment more to U.S. evangelical influence than to traditional cultures (Buckle,
2020; Cheney, 2012; Kaoma, 2014; Muthoni, 2022; Velasco, 2023b).
The colonial roots of anti-LGBTIQ+ sentiment in many parts of the world are often minimized
or ignored by individuals living in the U.S. andWestern European countries. The term “homona-
tionalism” has emerged to describe a combination of tolerance toward lesbian, gay, and bisexual
people combined with racist, ethnocentric, and nationalistic sentiment. It is often invoked in con-
versations regarding relations and immigration betweenWestern Europe and theU.S. and regions
including the Middle East, Eastern Europe, and African (Freude & Bosch, 2020). Homonation-
alism also involves judging the ability of a sovereign state to self-govern based on its record of
LGBTIQ+ rights and necessarily entails an air of moral superiority (Puar, 2018). Implying that
one’s country’s tolerance and/or acceptance of LGBTIQ+ persons is reflective of a virtuosity
that bestows unquestionable power over other nations and must be protected from “intolerant”
immigrants, rather than the result of differing political and historical contexts, mirrors eugeni-
cist and colonialist schools of thought. In a similar vein, “pink-washing” occurs when modern
racist, colonialist, or nationalist governments attempt to cover up their poor treatment of immi-
grants, indigenous persons, or less powerful countries by touting their records on LGBTIQ+ rights
compared to those of their targets (Ritchie, 2015).
 15404560, 2024, 3, D
ow
nloaded from
 https://spssi.onlinelibrary.w
iley.com
/doi/10.1111/josi.12643 by C
A
PE
S, W
iley O
nline L
ibrary on [21/11/2024]. See the T
erm
s and C
onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com
/term
s-and-conditions) on W
iley O
nline L
ibrary for rules of use; O
A
 articles are governed by the applicable C
reative C
om
m
ons L
icense
Reimagining LGBTIQ+ research 831
In sum, progress on LGBTIQ+ rights over the last decades has been significant but highly
uneven across countries, subgroups of LGBTIQ+ people, and LGBTIQ+ people who belong to
multiple minority groups (e.g., LGBTIQ+ who belong to an ethnic/racial minority, and/or reli-
gious minority or LGBTIQ+ people of color in white-dominated spaces, or LGBTIQ+ people with
a disability). While most research has focused on damaged-centered approaches, identifying fac-
tors that promote social change toward an inclusive, equitable, and safe society for all people
across the world seems desirable.
ORGANIZATION OF THIS ISSUE
This special issue reimagines the contemporary field of LGBTIQ+ research by critically analyzing
and presenting the needs and priorities across various subgroups of LGBTIQ+ people (Section II),
discussing challenges and new methodological perspectives for conducting LGBTIQ+ research
(Section III), and referring to differences across countries and the dynamic interplay between
individual, social, and contextual variables (Section IV). Additionally, several contributions call
for greater consideration of intersectionalities, differences across countries, and implementation
of a strengths-based perspective to identify factors that help LGBTIQ+ people to thrive and that
can promote social change toward inclusive, equitable, and safe societies across the world.
Contributions focusing on section II: the LGBTIQ+
community—subpopulations within the acronym
In the first article, Bartels et al. (2024) discuss the tension between essentialist and social construc-
tionist framings of gender, sex, and sexuality in light of internal (i.e., self-defined) and external
(i.e., perception by others) descriptions of LGBTIQ+ identities. For example, while essentialist
explanations, such as biological causes of sexual minority orientation, might increase the accep-
tance of sexual minority community members, perceiving distinct biological boundaries between
men and women may stand in the way of the acceptance of trans women as “real” women and
trans men as “real” men. The authors emphasize that both LGBTIQ+ and non-LGBTIQ+ people
draw on essentialist and social constructionist beliefs—which, depending on situation, context,
and perspective, may validate or invalidate LGBTIQ+ people’s identities and lived experiences in
turn.
In addition to theoretical diversity, Klysing et al. (2024) address how best to contend with the
diverse set of identities that fall under the LGBTIQ+ umbrella. First, they question the efficacy of
focusing on the LGBTIQ+ acronym versus individual subgroups of LGBTIQ+ people. Drawing on
the history of LGBTIQ+ research, authors note the primary focus on gaymen, followed by gay and
lesbian people, and eventually bisexual, trans, and nonbinary people. They argue that although
using the LGBTIQ+ acronym might be perceived as an act of inclusion, LGBTIQ+ research still
falls short of being truly representative of all its groups. For instance, there is still very limited
psychological research on intersex people, raising the question of whether including the I in the
acronym is more a gesture of inclusivity than true inclusion. Furthermore, grouping together dif-
ferent subgroups within the acronym might blend differences between subpopulations and their
divergent needs as well as the dynamic relationship between sex, gender identity, and sexuality.
Finally, the authors discuss the lack of consideration given to the different terminology used across
countries and in minoritized racial/ethnic groups within countries.
 15404560, 2024, 3, D
ow
nloaded from
 https://spssi.onlinelibrary.w
iley.com
/doi/10.1111/josi.12643 by C
A
PE
S, W
iley O
nline L
ibrary on [21/11/2024]. See the T
erm
s and C
onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com
/term
s-and-conditions) on W
iley O
nline L
ibrary for rules of use; O
A
 articles are governed by the applicable C
reative C
om
m
ons L
icense
832 HÄSSLER et al.
In the final article, Bettergarcia et al. (2024) center the margins of LGBTIQ+ research by focus-
ing on the resistance and resilience of trans and gender diverse people of color inwhite-dominated
spaces. The authors criticize how resilience is often phrased solely as a survival response to oppres-
sive forces, instead of focusing on the conditions under which marginalized people not only
survive but thrive (see also Cherian et al., 2024; Cipollina et al., 2024). They argue that research
should focus on the dynamic interplay between resilience factors at the individual, group, cul-
tural, and contextual levels. Like Klysing et al. (2024), their contribution to the issue tells us that
LGBTIQ+ people can be categorized at different and intersecting levels of analysis, which must
be considered to fully understand their experiences.
The contributions in this section emphasize important considerations when conducting
research on or providing services for distinct subgroups of the LGBTIQ+ community. Grouping
LGBTIQ+ people under one umbrellamay help to advance social justice endeavors, but alsomight
serve to obscure important differences, including diverging and sometimes contradictory needs
between subgroups. For example, essentialist or social constructivist framings of sex, gender, and
sexual orientation can be strategically used by both cisgender heterosexual and LGBTIQ+ people
to validate the experiences of some subgroupsof LGBTIQ+ people while simultaneously inval-
idating the experiences of other subgroups. Further, intersex people and LGBTIQ+ people with
multiple minoritized identities are often not fully addressed.
Contributions focusing on section III: methodological challenges
This section of the special issue takes note of the dilemmas that dictate the lives of LGBTIQ+ peo-
ple and highlights methodological challenges when investigating their experiences. First, Li et al.
(2024) discuss the importance ofmeasurement for LGBTIQ+ people and evaluate the current state
of LGBTIQ+measurement around the world. The authors argue that current measurement prac-
tices with LGBTIQ+ populations fall short in two key ways. First, using nationally representative
survey data from a stratified sample of countries worldwide, the authors find that the demo-
graphic measures used to ask about gender and sexuality are not nuanced enough to accurately
capture gender and sexuality data about LGBTIQ+ individuals. Second, most mental well-being
measures used with LGBTIQ+ samples were not created, tested, or validated on LGBTIQ+ popu-
lations, leaving them vulnerable to misinterpretation due to measurement invariance. As a result,
researchers may fail to detect significant group differences or falsely infer that significant group
differences or interactions exist (Chen, 2007, 2008). Taken together, these shortcomings pose a
threat to the validity of the measures, and researchers run the risk of mischaracterizing the very
LGBTIQ+ populations they study. The authors call for actively including members of communi-
ties under study in the research process, carefully validating the administered scales among the
studied samples, and more methodological plurality such as mixed-method approaches.
Next, van der Toorn et al. (2024) discuss the benefits and risks of collecting sexual orienta-
tion and gender identity data in governmental and organizational contexts. The authors refer
to possible benefits of collecting these data, such as the recognition and increasing visibility of
LGBTIQ+ identities, documentation of discrimination, and the tracking of the effectiveness of
anti-discrimination policies and training. At the same time, they refer to possible risks involved
in gathering these sensitive data such as making individuals—particularly those with multiple
minoritized identities—vulnerable in their visibility, flattening queer identities into discrete cate-
gories, and leaving LGBTIQ+ people feeling unsafe and/or unable to respond to these questions.
Given that LGBTIQ+ people are criminalized in several countries across the world (ILGA, 2023),
 15404560, 2024, 3, D
ow
nloaded from
 https://spssi.onlinelibrary.w
iley.com
/doi/10.1111/josi.12643 by C
A
PE
S, W
iley O
nline L
ibrary on [21/11/2024]. See the T
erm
s and C
onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com
/term
s-and-conditions) on W
iley O
nline L
ibrary for rules of use; O
A
 articles are governed by the applicable C
reative C
om
m
ons L
icense
Reimagining LGBTIQ+ research 833
gathering these data in certain countries or frompeople of certain originsmight pose a serious risk
to them. Finally, the authors provide suggestions to balance these considerations, maximize ben-
efits, and minimize potential drawbacks when collecting data on sexual orientation and gender
identity.
In the third article, Cipollina et al. (2024) reflect on the applications of queer research in the
context of healthcare. The authors refer to the overreliance on research that focuses on document-
ing negative experiences and outcomes from the LGBTIQ+ community (i.e., damaged-centered
research; see Tuck, 2009) in response to the past and/or present criminalization and patholo-
gization of LGBTIQ+ people. The authors propose shifting the focus from LGBTIQ+ damage to
LGBTIQ+ resilience and well-being promotion at an intraindividual, interindividual, and struc-
tural level while taking intersectional stigma and cross-cultural differences into account (see also
Bettergarcia et al., 2024; Cherian et al., 2024).
Finally, Leskinen et al. (2024) discuss the challenges and limits of open science practices for
LGBTIQ+ research. The authors worry that open science practices might disregard community-
engaged approaches, including participatory and applied research. They further raise the issue
that providing researchers (who may not be a part of the community they study) access to data
without a connection to the studied communitiesmight run counter to social justice approaches to
LGBTIQ+ research and lead to potentially harmful or inaccurate conclusions. Further, standard-
izing the conceptualization of key concepts (e.g., assessing gender in a bimodal manner) with the
aim of increasing the reproducibility of science might undermine the accurate representation of
the diversity of lived experiences. Finally, open data might expose participating LGBTIQ+ people
to danger, given the risk of identification and the long history of pathologization (Cipollina et al.,
2024), discrimination, and the ongoing criminalization of LGBTIQ+ people in countries across
the globe (ILGAWorld, 2023).
Contributions focusing on section IV: cross-cultural differences
In the final section, four articles assess how differences in socio-political climate affect LGBTIQ+
individuals around the globe. In the first article of this section, Barrientos et al. (2024) provide
an overview of research on the LGBTIQ+ population in Latin America. They provide relevant
historical context, referencewidely used theoretical frameworks andmethodologies, and critically
examinewhich subgroups of LGBTIQ+ individuals have been included or excluded from research
efforts. Additionally, they discuss how structural stigma and discrimination in various countries
influences the likelihood of conducting research on LGBTIQ+ issues. The authors conclude by
suggesting possible next steps for researchers and practitioners working with LGBTIQ+ people in
Latin America.
In the second article of this section, Cherian et al. (2024) employ an intersectional lens in their
exploration of the ways in which multiple social, political, and legal forces impact the health of
LGBTIQ+ communities in Asia along dimensions of religion, gender, caste, sexuality, and ability.
In line with Cipollina et al. (2024), the authors question the utility of the deficit model that is often
applied in the study ofminority populations. They posit that a near-exclusive focus on the negative
effects of discrimination and inequalities on LGBTIQ+ people’s health might not be sufficient to
transform the community’s experience from one of marginalization to that of inclusion. Instead,
the authors call for a strengths-based perspective—one that informs healthcare providers and
practitioners on affirmative practices that can contribute to the overall well-being and thriving of
the LGBTIQ+ community.
 15404560, 2024, 3, D
ow
nloaded from
 https://spssi.onlinelibrary.w
iley.com
/doi/10.1111/josi.12643 by C
A
PE
S, W
iley O
nline L
ibrary on [21/11/2024]. See the T
erm
s and C
onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com
/term
s-and-conditions) on W
iley O
nline L
ibrary for rules of use; O
A
 articles are governed by the applicable C
reative C
om
m
ons L
icense
834 HÄSSLER et al.
In the following article, Mogotsi et al. (2024) investigate the multifaceted experiences of
LGBTIQ+ people in several African countries. In a continent lacking social support, where half
of all countries continue to criminalize LGBTIQ+ people, criminalization, stigmatization, and
discrimination have negatively affected the health, academic outcomes, and social lives of many
LGBTIQ+ people. The authors explore strategies toward the destigmatization of LGBTIQ+ people
in faith-based organizations, schools, and traditional healers. Shifting the focus to a strength-
based approach, the authors conclude with an examination of the effectiveness of current policies
and programs designed to create safe andinclusive spaces.
The 21st century has witnessed significant social, legal, and political changes regarding the
rights and acceptance of LGBTIQ+ individuals. In the final article of this section, Sweigart et al.
(2024) examine the relationship between norm perception of LGBTIQ+ issues and social change
while considering cross-national differences. The authors highlight the need to distinguish
between “actual norms” (e.g., the average of people’s attitudes toward a subject) and “perceived
norms” (e.g., people’s subjective perception of what the norm is within specific contexts). The
phenomena of consistent discrepancies between actual and perceived norms are stressed. Impor-
tantly, the interplay between individual (e.g., differences in personality and ideology), group (e.g.,
social group memberships), and structural (e.g., laws and institutional decisions) levels need to
be considered when trying to understand how norm perceptions feed into social change efforts
for greater LGBTIQ+ equality.
The concluding section provides a nuanced examination of the situation of LGBTIQ+ peo-
ple across the world. Taken as a whole, the articles demonstrate how the relationship between
LGBTIQ+ movements and science varies across countries and regions as influenced by nations’
unique historical and sociopolitical contexts. By including work from scholars residing in Africa,
Asia, Europe, Latin America, Oceania, and North America, we hope to mitigate the impacts of
the often Western-centric literature and do justice to the complexity of the lived experiences of
LGBTIQ+ persons across the globe. The contributions of this section discuss which subgroups of
LGBTIQ+ people have and have not been included in research endeavors, explore the dynamic
interplay betweenmicro, meso, and macro structures on LGBTIQ+ people’s experiences, and call
for shifts in the focus of researchers, practitioners, and care providers to promote social change
toward an inclusive, equitable, and safe society for all.
CONCLUSION
This special issue aims to provide a comprehensive picture of the current state of LGBTIQ+
research combined with concrete directions for redress. While the eleven review articles guide
us on the way to “reimagine” the field of LGBTIQ+ research, future special issues might benefit
from including a mix of quantitative and qualitative empirical studies as well as review articles.
A gap of this special issue is the missing focus on intersex people. Indeed, medically unneces-
sary sex-changing surgeries on intersex infants are still happening in many countries around the
world, and their implications on the physical and mental health of intersex people are largely
understudied (Carpenter, 2020). Despite our efforts to include scholars from various groups and
regions, scholars fromAfrica, Asia, Latin America, Eastern and Southern Europe, as well as Ocea-
nia, are still underrepresented in the present special issue. Despite these limitations, we believe
that this special issue is a valuable resource for researchers, LGBTIQ+ associations, institutions,
stakeholders, funders, and individuals aiming to foster an inclusive, equitable, and safe society for
all people (regardless of their sexual orientation, gender identity, and sex characteristics). Given
 15404560, 2024, 3, D
ow
nloaded from
 https://spssi.onlinelibrary.w
iley.com
/doi/10.1111/josi.12643 by C
A
PE
S, W
iley O
nline L
ibrary on [21/11/2024]. See the T
erm
s and C
onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com
/term
s-and-conditions) on W
iley O
nline L
ibrary for rules of use; O
A
 articles are governed by the applicable C
reative C
om
m
ons L
icense
Reimagining LGBTIQ+ research 835
this underrepresentation, the divergent experiences of the involved scholars, and varying barriers
for scholars interested in conducting LGBTIQ+ research across the world, we conclude this arti-
cle by calling for a research community that is more aware of unequal power dynamics within
academia, more willing to take action to reduce these disparities within the global academic
system, and more inclusive of voices from underrepresented groups. We believe that increasing
diversity is essential to improving the quality of science and the translation of scientific findings
into real-world applications aimed toward fostering social equity across the world. We hope that
this special issue makes an important contribution to “Reimagining LGBTIQ+ Research”.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank Yu-Chi Wang, Peter Hegarty, and Abdullah Marei for their insightful comments. We
further thank the organizers of the SPSSI-EASP small-group meeting on “Advancing LGBTIQ+
Research” for initiating this special issue (S. Atwood, Léïla Eisner, Tabea Hässler, and Thekla
Morgenroth, as well as the local host Sharon Horne). Finally, we want to thank the European
Association of Social Psychology, the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues, and
the University of Massachusetts Boston for sponsoring the small-group meeting on “Advancing
LGBTIQ+ Research”.
CONFL ICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT
The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.
AUTH OR ’ S POS IT IONAL ITY
The authors of this manuscript vary in the stage of their academic career, with one current gradu-
ate student author and four early career researchers. All authors have close ties to the LGBTIQ+
community, self-identifying as bisexual, queer, gay, trans, and nonbinary. One author identifies as
Mexican/Latina, one as Asian American, and three asWhite. Our authors were raised in Oceania,
Europe, and North America. The authors also have training and theoretical lenses ranging among
counseling psychology, social psychology, demography, public health, sport and communication
science, and social policy.
ORCID
TabeaHässler https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9371-2423
NicoleTheiss Fogwell https://orcid.org/0009-0004-0027-9838
AlejandraGonzalez https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2525-2832
Joel R.Anderson https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3649-2003
S.Atwood https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2889-9575
REFERENCES
Abo-Zena, M. M., Jones, K., & Mattis, J. (2022). Dismantling the master’s house: Decolonizing “rigor” in
psychological scholarship. Journal of Social Issues, 78(2), 298–319. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12519
Adamczyk, A., & Liao, Y. C. (2019). Examining public opinion about LGBTQ-related issues in the United States and
across multiple nations. Annual Review of Sociology, 45, 401–423. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-073018-
022332
Amano, T., Ramírez-Castañeda, V., Berdejo-Espinola, V., Borokini, I., Chowdhury, S., Golivets, M., González-
Trujillo, J. D., Montaño-Centellas, F., Paudel, K., White, R. L., & Veríssimo, D. (2023). The manifold costs of
being a non-native English speaker in science. PLoS Biology, 21(7), e3002184. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pbio.3002184
 15404560, 2024, 3, D
ow
nloaded from
 https://spssi.onlinelibrary.w
iley.com
/doi/10.1111/josi.12643 by C
A
PE
S, W
iley O
nline L
ibrary on [21/11/2024]. See the T
erm
s and C
onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com
/term
s-and-conditions) on W
iley O
nline L
ibrary for rules of use; O
A
 articles are governed by the applicable C
reative C
om
m
ons L
icense
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9371-2423
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9371-2423
https://orcid.org/0009-0004-0027-9838
https://orcid.org/0009-0004-0027-9838
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2525-2832
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2525-2832
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3649-2003
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3649-2003
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2889-9575
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2889-9575
https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12519
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-073018-022332
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-073018-022332
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002184
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002184
836 HÄSSLER et al.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013).Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). American
Psychiatric Association.
Anderson, J., & Holland, E. (2015). The legacy of medicalising“homosexuality”: A discussion on the historical
effects of non-heterosexual diagnostic classifications. Sensoria: A Journal of Mind, Brain & Culture, 11(1), 4–15.
https://doi.org/10.7790/sa.v11i1.405
Anderson, J., & Maugeri, J. (2022). Correlates of attitudes toward bisexuality: A systematic review and meta-
analysis. Journal of Homosexuality, 1–34. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2022.
2112524
Arnett, J. J. (2008). The neglected 95%: Why American psychology needs to become less American. American
Psychologist, 63(7), 602–614. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.63.7.602
Ashley, F. (2021). The misuse of gender dysphoria: Toward greater conceptual clarity in transgender health.
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(6), 1159–1164. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619872987
Barnett, A. P., del Río-González, A. M., Parchem, B., Pinho, V., Aguayo-Romero, R., Nakamura, N., Calabrese, S.
K., Poppen, P. J., & Zea, M. C. (2019). Content analysis of psychological research with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
transgender people of color in the United States: 1969–2018. American Psychologist, 74(8), 898–911. https://doi.
org/10.1037/amp0000562
Barrientos Delgado, J., & Bahamondes, J. (2022). Homosexuality justification and social distance: A cross-cultural
approach from Latin America using world values survey data. In R. A. Chaparro &M. A.M. Prado (Eds.), Latinx
queer psychology. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82250-7_8
Barrientos, J., Nardi, H. C., Mendoza-Pérez, J. C., Navarro, M. C., Bahamondes, J., Pecheny, M., & Radi, B. (2024).
Trends in psychosocial research on LGBTIQ+ populations in Latin and Central America: Findings, challenges,
and concerns. Journal of Social Issues.
Barrientos, J., & Radi, B. (2021). Avoiding hetero/cissexist bias in psychological research: A contribution from Latin
America. Revista Interamericana de Psicología/Interamerican Journal of Psychology, 55(2), e1631–e1631. https://
doi.org/10.30849/ripijp.v55i2.1631
Bartels, M. S., Le Forestier, J. M., Hug, A. M. O., Morgenroth, T., & Roselló-Peñaloza, M. (2024). The effects of
essentialist and social constructionist notions on perceptions of “realness” and LGBTIQ+ experiences. Journal
of Social Issues.
BBC News. (2023). Uganda’s President Museveni approves tough new anti-gay law. Retrieved from https://www.
bbc.com/news/world-africa-65745850
Bettergarcia, J. N., Crone, C., Herry, E., & Ali, B. (2024). Centering the margins: Reimagining resilience and
resistance for transgender and nonbinary people of color. Journal of Social Issues.
Bou Zeineddine, F., Saab, R., Lášticová, B., Kende, A., & Ayanian, A. H. (2022). “Some uninteresting data from a
faraway country”: Inequity and coloniality in international social psychological publications. Journal of Social
Issues, 78(2), 320–345. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12481
Buckle, L. (2020). African sexuality and the legacy of imported homophobia. Retrieved from https://www.
stonewall.org.uk/about-us/news/african-sexuality-and-legacy-imported-homophobia
Carpenter, M. (2020). The OHCHR background note on human rights violations against intersex people. Sexual
and Reproductive Health Matters, 28(1), 1731298. https://doi.org/10.1080/26410397.2020.1731298
Chaux, E., León, M., Cuellar, L., & Martínez, J. (2021). Public opinion toward LGBT people and rights in
Latin America and the Caribbean. In Oxford research encyclopedia of politics. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/
9780190228637.013.1941
Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation
Modeling, 14(3), 464–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834
Chen, F. F. (2008). What happens if we compare chopsticks with forks? The impact of making inappropriate com-
parisons in cross-cultural research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(5), 1005–1018. https://doi.
org/10.1037/a0013193
Chen, J., Walters, M. L., Gilbert, L. K., & Patel, N. (2020). Sexual violence, stalking, and intimate partner violence
by sexual orientation, United States. Psychology of Violence, 10(1), 110–119. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000252
Cheney, K. (2012). Locating neocolonialism,“tradition”, and human rights inUganda’s “gay death penalty”.African
Studies Review, 55(2), 77–95. https://doi.org/10.1353/arw.2012.0031
Cherian, D. (2018). Understanding experience, embodiment and overcoming sexual stigma in sexual minorities
(Doctoral dissertation).
 15404560, 2024, 3, D
ow
nloaded from
 https://spssi.onlinelibrary.w
iley.com
/doi/10.1111/josi.12643 by C
A
PE
S, W
iley O
nline L
ibrary on [21/11/2024]. See the T
erm
s and C
onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com
/term
s-and-conditions) on W
iley O
nline L
ibrary for rules of use; O
A
 articles are governed by the applicable C
reative C
om
m
ons L
icense
https://doi.org/10.7790/sa.v11i1.405
https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2022.2112524
https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2022.2112524
https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.63.7.602
https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619872987
https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000562
https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000562
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82250-7_8
https://doi.org/10.30849/ripijp.v55i2.1631
https://doi.org/10.30849/ripijp.v55i2.1631
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-65745850
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-65745850
https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12481
https://www.stonewall.org.uk/about-us/news/african-sexuality-and-legacy-imported-homophobia
https://www.stonewall.org.uk/about-us/news/african-sexuality-and-legacy-imported-homophobia
https://doi.org/10.1080/26410397.2020.1731298
https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.1941
https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.1941
https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013193
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013193
https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000252
https://doi.org/10.1353/arw.2012.0031
Reimagining LGBTIQ+ research 837
Cherian, D., Singh, P., Jami, H., Ummak, E., & Osin, E. (2024). From oppressive to affirmative: Situating the
health and well-being of LGBTIQ+ people as impacted by systemic and structural transitions in Russia, Turkey,
Pakistan and India. Journal of Social Issues.
Cipollina, R. A., Ruben, M. A., Maroney, M. R., Fu, C., Gonzalez, A., Theiss Fogwell, N., Bettergarcia, J. N., &
Levitt, H. M. (2024). The damaging legacy of damage-centered LGBTIQ+ research: Implications for healthcare
and LGBTQ+ health. Journal of Social Issues.
Clarke, V., & Peel, E. (2007). From lesbian and gay psychology to LGBTQpsychologies: A journey into the unknown
(or unknowable)? In V. Clarke & E. Peel (Eds.), Out in psychology: Lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and queer
perspectives (pp. 11–35). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470713099.ch2
Clune-Taylor, C. (2019). Securing cisgendered futures: Intersex management under the “Disorders of Sex
Development” treatment model. Hypatia, 34(4), 690–712. https://doi.org/10.1111/hypa.12494
Conover, K. J., & Israel, T. (2019). Microaggressions and social support among sexual minorities with physical
disabilities. Rehabilitation Psychology, 64(2), 167–178. https://doi.org/10.1037/rep0000250
Corrales, J. (2017). Understanding the uneven spread of LGBT rights in Latin America and the Caribbean, 1999–
2013. Journal of Research in Gender Studies, 7(1), 52–82.
Costa, A. B., Peroni, R. O., Bandeira, D. R., & Nardi, H. C. (2013). Homophobia or sexism? A systematic review
of prejudice against nonheterosexual orientation in Brazil. International Journal of Psychology, 48(5), 900–909.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00207594.2012.729839
Coulter, R. W., Kenst, K. S., Bowen, D. J., & Scout (2014). Research funded by the National Institutes of Health
on the health of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender populations. American Journal of Public Health, 104(2),
e105–e112. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301501
Crocetti, D., Arfini, E. A., Monro, S., & Yeadon-Lee, T. (2020). “You’re basically calling doctors torturers”: Stake-
holder