How discrimination in adoptive, foster, and medical systems harms LGBTQ+ families: Research on the experiences of prospective parents

Levitt, Heidi M.; Schuyler, Sophie W.; Chickerella, Rachel; Elber, Allison; White, Lindsey; Troeger, Rebecca; Karter, Justin M.; Preston, Justin M.; Collins, Kathleen M.

doi:10.1080/10538720.2020.1728461

Cited by 13 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite recent landmark achievements for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in marriage equality (e.g., Obergefell v. Hodges , 2015), and most recently, employment equality (e.g., Bostock v. Clayton County , 2020) in the United States, rights associated with becoming a parent, including access to assisted reproductive technology, foster parenting, and second-parent adoption, have lagged behind other rights and are currently under attack (Family Equality Council, 2020; Levitt et al, 2020). As of February 27, 2021, 11 states allow adoption and foster care agencies to deny services to LGBTQ couples if they deem sexual minority relationships to conflict with the religious beliefs of the agency, and in the last legislative session, six additional bills supporting such allowances were introduced at the state level (American Civil Liberties Union, 2020; Movement Advancement Project, 2020).…”

Section: Lgbtq Parentingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moreover, there are many systemic barriers that prevent LGBTQ people from becoming parents, including limitations on hospital privileges of providers who assist with reproductive technology, barriers to international adoption for LGBTQ individuals and couples, and selective decisions on second-parent adoptions imposed by a judge or jurisdiction (Farr & Goldberg, 2015; Levitt et al, 2020; Patterson & Ball, 2018). Marriage equality allows married LGBTQ parents to be listed on a birth certificate, jointly adopt, and petition for stepparent adoption statewide (Kazyak et al, 2018).…”

Section: Lgbtq Parentingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Unequal rights between LGBTQ parents living in the U.S.: The association of minority stress to relationship satisfaction and parental stress.

Horne¹,

Johnson²,

Yel³

et al. 2022

Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) individuals who become parents in the United States may not be granted legal recognition as parents upon beginning their families, which can result in inequality in parenting rights between partners. In an online survey with 420 LGBTQ parents who were living with a partner with whom they had cocreated a family and had at least one child under age 18, we explored whether parents in couples with unequal rights (N = 113) report minority stress, and whether minority stress was related to relationship dissatisfaction and parental stress. Explored through a mediated path model, parents in couples with unequal rights reported less disclosure about LGBTQ identity and more worry about family discrimination in comparison with parents in couples with full rights. Furthermore, these minority stressors were related to relationship dissatisfaction and associated with parental stress. Unequal rights, accompanied by worry about discrimination and lower reported outness, may put a strain on the couple relationship, which, in turn, may be associated with parental stress. Advocacy efforts should be employed to reduce obstacles to full parentage rights for LGBTQ families. Clinical implications for working with LGBTQ parents with discrepant rights are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Lgbtq Parentingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Lgbtq Parentingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Unequal rights between LGBTQ parents living in the U.S.: The association of minority stress to relationship satisfaction and parental stress.

Horne¹,

Johnson²,

Yel³

et al. 2022

Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The earned nature of this privilege responds to critiques that this theory is essentialist and simplifies the varied perspectives within marginalized groups (Wylie, 2012) and can lead to having more complex and specific discussions of knowledge among researchers than simply crediting comprehensive privilege based on identities. For instance, in a research team on challenges to LGBTQ+ procreation, most of the LGBTQ+ team members had no experience with medical, adoption, or fostering agencies that were the focus so their relevant lived experience was limited (Levitt, Schuyler, et al, 2020). Researchers may employ the lens of strong objectivity (e.g., within critical qualitative methods), regardless of the degree to which their participants have earned this interpretive privilege (e.g., a feminist researcher may explore the writings of religious women from sects that endorse female submission in marriage to learn how these norms are maintained; her earned expertise might be in feminist theory/research but not than in workings of that sect).…”

Section: Subjective Forms Of Expertise and The Contribution Of Episte...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In our experience, collaborators often are interested in having these discussions because they quell fears in the group. For instance, in research on the discrimination of LGBTQ+ people during the process of having children (e.g., from medical, adoption, or fostering agencies; Levitt, Schuyler, et al, 2020), some team members who were LGBTQ+ revealed their fears that their own perspectives might get in the way. We discussed the challenges for LGBTQ students and the need to be mindful to use their personal and academic experiences to facilitate interpretation, while being cautious that those experiences did not overshadow the participants’ own stories.…”

Section: Subjective Forms Of Expertise and The Contribution Of Episte...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Intersubjective recognition as the methodological enactment of epistemic privilege: A critical basis for consensus and intersubjective confirmation procedures.

Levitt¹,

Ipekci²,

Morrill³

et al. 2021

Qualitative Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There are a number of procedures, well established within qualitative research, that were originally formulated to use intersubjective confirmation as a way to bolster confidence in findings (e.g., consensus, auditing, member checks). These procedures enhanced methodological integrity by demonstrating that people from differing perspectives can examine the data and reach the same conclusions-indicating that a finding was not entirely idiosyncratic. In this article, we propose the concept of epistemic privilege as an alternate foundation for these procedures. In this approach, the recognition of differences among the histories, perspectives, knowledge, and investments of research team members creates a context in which forms of subjective knowledge (i.e., lived experience, expertise) become resources that heighten a team's perspicacity. The enactment of the proposed procedures shifts the meanings and application of confirmation processes so they become appropriate for critical, constructivist, and participatory research. They change the theoretical formulation from a democratic process of confirming objective perceptions to a collaborative process of intersubjective recognition that values diverse knowledge sources. We focus on the example of researcher consensus, providing a brief history of past rationales and practices for this procedure, and describing our approach as strengthening findings as well as improving research team dynamics. This form of collaboration ameliorates prior concerns expressed about consensus, such as intergroup power differentials, and the fear that attuned investigators may weaken their interpretations to obtain consensus with others. In this process, we identify sources of epistemic privilege, detail methodological procedures, and offer suggestions for research reporting.

show abstract

“…As of February 24, 2021, there were more than 90 anti-LGBTQ bills introduced, pending, or recently passed at the state level in the U.S. This includes legislation excluding noncisgender heterosexual couples from adoption and foster parenting, eliminating health care protections for sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI), and gender restrictions on public accommodations (American Civil Liberties Union [ACLU], 2021; Levitt et al, 2020). In particular, transgender, nonbinary, and gender diverse (TNG) people increasingly are the targets of the legislation.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The stench of bathroom bills and anti-transgender legislation: Anxiety and depression among transgender, nonbinary, and cisgender LGBQ people during a state referendum.

Horne¹,

McGinley²,

Yel³

et al. 2022

Journal of Counseling Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Informed by structural stigma theory, this article presents the results of two studies that explored mental health experiences of transgender, nonbinary, and gender-diverse (TNG) individuals and cisgender lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer (LGBQ) individuals (N = 523) prior to and following a state referendum to remove gender-based protections. In the Preelection Study, a path model explored relationships among individual factors (i.e., TNG identity, history of gender-based victimization), interpersonal variables (i.e., Referendum familiarity, exposure to Referendum-related messages, sexual orientation, and gender identity-specific social support), and mental health factors (i.e., Referendum-related anxiety and depressive symptomatology). Referendum-related anxiety mediated the relationships between TNG identity, gender-based victimization, sexual orientation and gender identity social support, and depressive symptomatology, explaining 40% of the variance in depressive symptomatology. Postelection, a subsample of participants (N = 117) was used to test a model of differences from pre-to postelection. Neither TNG identity nor victimization predicted Postelection mental health, however, Referendum-related anxiety and depressive symptomatology were significantly lower following the ballot vote that retained gender-based rights. Clinical implications suggest sexual and gender minorities may report increased anxiety in the face of anti-lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) legislation, which may be associated with heightened symptoms of depression. TNG people and LGBTQ people with histories of genderbased victimization may be more at risk for mental health concerns related to anti-TNG legislation. Public Significance StatementThis study suggests that public debate over and legislative attempts to restrict protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people present an ongoing threat to mental health for LGBTQ people, and particularly for transgender, nonbinary, and gender diverse (TNG) individuals. Even when legislative outcomes are favorable, LGBTQ people may suffer anxiety and depression, especially those who identify as TNG or who have histories of gender-based victimization.

show abstract

How discrimination in adoptive, foster, and medical systems harms LGBTQ+ families: Research on the experiences of prospective parents

Cited by 13 publications

References 32 publications

Unequal rights between LGBTQ parents living in the U.S.: The association of minority stress to relationship satisfaction and parental stress.

Unequal rights between LGBTQ parents living in the U.S.: The association of minority stress to relationship satisfaction and parental stress.

Intersubjective recognition as the methodological enactment of epistemic privilege: A critical basis for consensus and intersubjective confirmation procedures.

The stench of bathroom bills and anti-transgender legislation: Anxiety and depression among transgender, nonbinary, and cisgender LGBQ people during a state referendum.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About