“Things Will Get Worse Before They Get Better”: LGBTQ + People’s Reactions to the 2020 US Presidential Election

Abstract

Introduction Previous research has found that political discourse over proposed legislation that impacts lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer or questioning (LGBTQ +) people serves as a distal stressor which is associated with poorer mental and physical health. This study sought to document responses to the 2020 US Presidential election among LGBTQ + people living in the USA. Methods Nineteen LGBTQ + people ages 20 to 76 (M = 47.20; SD = 17.66) living across the USA were interviewed via Zoom video conferencing software between October and early December 2020. The modal participant was female (36.8%), identified as gay or lesbian (47.3%), and White (84.2%). Interviews were coded using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (Smith & Osborn, 2003). Results Seventeen codes emerged, which were grouped into three themes. Participants viewed specific political figures, namely then-President Trump and Supreme Court nominee Coney-Barrett, as symbolic of the potential loss of rights and disenfranchisement of LGBTQ + people. Participants exhibited uncertainty about the future; however, a Biden presidential win was viewed as potentially instilling complacency and leading to fracturing of the LGBTQ + community. While some participants avoided news, most were engaged with the political process as a means of coping with election uncertainty. Conclusions The findings have implications for better understanding the concerns of LGBTQ + folks as it relates to how they view political discourse and the future of the equality movement. Policy Implications Policies which beneficially impact and engage a diverse range of LGBTQ + people would facilitate mobilization of LGBTQ + political communities.

Perceived Impact of the Parental Rights in Education Act (“Don’t Say Gay”) on LGBTQ+ Parents in Florida

“…Notably, a minority of participants were not especially worried, interpreting the Parental Rights in Education Act as either reasonable, unenforceable, or not applicable to their families because of the age of their children and/or the type of school they attended (i.e., private). Certain privileged statuses may also have enabled them to feel less urgency about their family’s future, mitigating perceived or feared consequences associated with state-sponsored stigma (Pachankis et al, 2017; Schlehofer et al, 2023). For example, LGBTQ+ parents of a higher socioeconomic status often possess the resources to find LGBTQ+-friendly schools (Goldberg et al, 2018).…”

“…Scholars have pointed out that experiences and the impacts of structural stigma may not be felt the same for all members of a minoritized group (Patterson et al, 2020;Rao et al, 2020). Various dimensions of power and marginalization intersect with sexual and gender minority status, such that LGBTQ+ people may be differentially exposed to and uniquely impacted by structural stigma, including anti-LGBTQ+ legislation and associated political discourse (Flores et al, 2018;Grzanka et al, 2020;Meyer et al, 2011;Price et al, 2023;Schlehofer et al, 2023). Educational and financial privilege, for example, may allow some LGBTQ+ parents to reside in more progressive communities and/or send their children to more progressive schools, where attitudes and norms deviate significantly from and are more accepting than state laws or policies (Goldberg et al, 2018).…”