Sexual and Gender Minority Victimization: Base Rates of Assault in College Students Across Sexual and Gender Identities

Abstract

Past findings have indicated that sexual and gender minority (SGM) individuals experience disproportionate rates of emotional, physical, and sexual assault compared to their heterosexual/cisgender counterparts. While these findings are robust, many studies report homogenous groupings of SGM participants. This practice likely masks important between-group differences. We sought to address this issue by examining reported base rates of emotional, physical, and sexual assault within 12 months of data collection, split across specific sexual (heterosexual, gay/lesbian, bisexual, questioning, queer, pansexual, asexual, and demisexual) and gender (cisgender men, cisgender women, gender nonconforming female assigned at birth [FAB], and gender nonconforming male assigned at birth) identity groups. Our data came from 2020 to 2021 Healthy Minds Study, a large survey of college students living in the United States (N = 119,181). Results indicated most forms of assault were higher in SGM groups compared to heterosexual and cisgender individuals, both on univariate and multivariate (e.g., one or more type of assault) levels. Demisexual individuals reported the highest base rates for emotional assault (45.7%), whereas pansexual individuals reported highest rates of physical assault (12.5%) and sexual assault (17.3%). Demisexual individuals reported the highest multivariate base rate of experiencing at least one form of assault (49.5%), and pansexual individuals reported the highest multivariate base rate of experiencing all three forms of assault (4.7%) within the past 12 months. Gender nonconforming FAB individuals reported the highest univariate and multivariate base rates across assault types compared to all other gender identity groups. With few exceptions, compared to heterosexual and cisgender men (referents), all other sexual and gender identity groups reported significantly higher adjusted odds of experiencing each assault type. These data suggest SGM individuals experience disproportionate levels of assault.

Keywords

sexual and gender minorities emotional assault physical assault sexual assault trauma

Introduction

Sexual and gender minority (SGM) individuals experience a multitude of mental health problems disproportional to their heterosexual/cisgender counterparts. Examples include disparities in depression (Björkenstam et al., 2017; Borgogna et al., 2019), anxiety/social anxiety (L. P. Wadsworth & Hayes-Skelton, 2015), substance use (Green & Feinstein, 2012; Schuler et al., 2019), and even psychosis (Borgogna et al., 2022). SGM mental health problems are particularly notable on college campuses, where as high as 60% of SGM college students report experiencing issues with their mental health (Gonzales et al., 2020). Meyer’s (2003) minority stress framework is the primary model used to explain these differences; specifically, that SGM mental health disparities are rooted in experiences of distal and proximal stress. Distal stressors include external social structures/experiences that are harmful, such as anti-same sex marriage laws and harassment. Proximal stressors include internal reactions to distal stressors, such as internalized heterosexism/cisgenderism and stigma. A wealth of research has validated minority stress mechanisms (distal and proximal) as significant positive correlates of mental health problems in SGM samples, including college students (e.g., Borgogna & McDermott, 2020; Szymanski, 2009; Testa et al., 2015; Walch et al., 2016). Despite these advances, areas of further research remain.

Notably, there is an overall lack of research on clinically meaningful assault experiences across specific SGM groups, such as how assault rates might differ between pansexual and gay individuals. Operationally, “clinically meaningful assault experiences” are broader than traumatic events as defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition-Text Revision (DSM-5-TR; i.e., a Criterion A trauma) in that they do not require “actual or threatened death, serious injury, or sexual violence” (American Psychiatric Association, 2022). While not necessarily formal “traumas,” assault experiences are associated with a wide range of psychological sequalae (Ganson et al., 2022; Johansen et al., 2009; P. Wadsworth & Records, 2013). Moreover, there is considerable concern over the prevalence of various types of assault on college campuses (Fedina et al., 2018; Ganson et al., 2022). Accordingly, it is important to examine (1) the base rates of different types of assaults across sexual and gender diverse college students and (2) examine the degree to which SGM students experience disproportionate assault rates. Additionally, as assault has been linked to mental health concerns (Ganson et al., 2022; Johansen et al., 2009), it is important to examine how the strength of the relation between different assault types and mental health changes across identity groups.

While many types of assault exist/can be conceptualized, we chose to examine three broad assault constructs relevant to SGM populations: emotional, physical, and sexual assault. We were specifically interested in examining base rates of recent (i.e., within the last 12 months from the time of data collection) emotional, physical, and sexual assault across specific SGM college students. That is, most extant research on SGM individuals generally conflates different SGM identities into a homogeneous group, or at times, homogeneous gender and sexual identity groups. While this practice is often considered necessary for statistical powering purposes, it risks masking important between-group differences. We sought to address this issue in the current study, as best we could. Consistent with a minority stress perspective and to contextualize our findings, we also calculated the base rates of the assault constructs in heterosexual and cisgender participants and examined whether disparities existed. Finally, to connect the assault experiences to mental health concerns, we also calculated correlation coefficients across sexual and gender identity groups between assault experiences and depression symptoms.

Emotional Assault

We defined emotional assault as experiences of non-physical behaviors that serve to undermine another person. Examples of emotional assault include harassment via name calling/mocking and verbal/non-verbal threats. Behaviors that are not necessarily outwardly hostile, yet still belittling (e.g., coercion), were also considered emotional assault. Conceptually, many emotional assaults might also be forms of distal stress. SGM individuals historically have been the victims of slurs, harassment, and jokes. Meta-analytic findings suggest that 55% of gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals report experiencing verbal harassment alone (Katz-Wise & Hyde, 2012). Even sexual identity labels such as “gay” and “queer” might be used as offensive words in heterosexist dialogue (Winberg et al., 2019; Woodford et al., 2012). Not surprisingly, emotional assault experiences are positively correlated with depression in SGM individuals (Espelage et al., 2019; Martin-Storey & August, 2016).

Notably, emotional assault can also involve identity-specific forms of assault that are unique to SGM individuals. For instance, some SGM individuals are subject to experiences of identity-abuse where they are threatened to be “outed” by formerly trusted individuals (Scheer et al., 2019; Woulfe & Goodman, 2020). Different SGM identities are also associated with unique forms of emotional assault. For instance, bisexual individuals experience bi-negative stereotypes (McInnis et al., 2022), with the assault, at times, coming from members within SGM communities (Friedman et al., 2014). Gender non-conforming (GNC) individuals such as those from non-binary identities also experience unique forms of emotional assault related to identifying outside of the traditional gender binary (Kattari et al., 2021; Price et al., 2021).

Physical Assault

We defined physical assault as experiences where a person is directly physically harmed by another person. Predictably, a wide body of literature has documented the association between experiences of physical assault and mental health problems (e.g., Cook et al., 2013; Jordan et al., 2010; Winstok & Straus, 2014). Like emotional assault, physical assault serves as a form of distal stress that disparately impacts SGM individuals. Multiple studies have indicated SGM individuals experience disproportionate rates of physical assault compared to majoritized groups (Button et al., 2012; James et al., 2016; Roberts et al., 2013). For example, past findings indicate 23% of sexual minority youth experience physical altercations at school, compared to 9.9% of heterosexual youth. Similarly, 9.1% of sexual minority youth report receiving an injury due to physical violence that required treatment, compared to 3.5% of heterosexual youth (Button et al., 2012). Keeping with the effects of emotional assault, ample literature notes a positive association between physical violence and adverse mental health outcomes among SGM individuals (e.g., Hall, 2018; House et al., 2011; Huebner et al., 2004; Roberts et al., 2013).

Sexual Assault

We defined sexual assault as any unwanted sexual contact. This could include any form of penetrative oral, anal, or vaginal sexual intercourse, as well as any sexual contact that might occur while the victim is unable to consent. Similar to emotional and physical assault, a wide body of literature documents a positive correlation between experiencing sexual assault and adverse mental health problems (e.g., Campbell et al., 2009; Dworkin, 2020; MacGregor et al., 2019; Temple et al., 2007), including SGM mental health problems (e.g., Backhaus et al., 2021; Hatchel et al., 2018). Notably, SGM individuals experience elevated rates of sexual assault compared to their majoritized counterparts (Black et al., 2011; Roberts et al., 2010). To illustrate, in the United States, 46% of bisexual women report having been raped compared to 17% of heterosexual women. Similarly, 40% of gay men and 47% of bisexual men reported having experienced acts of sexual violence other than rape compared to 21% of heterosexual men (Black et al., 2011). According to the United States Transgender Survey, 47% of GNC individuals report lifetime histories of sexual assault (James et al., 2016).

Conceptually, minority stress via proximal pathways may influence SGM sexual assault. Particularly, internalized heterosexism (i.e., internalized homophobia) and cisgenderism (i.e., internalized transphobia) have been identified as positive correlates of sexual assault victimization (Kolp et al., 2020; Polihronakis et al., 2021; Salim et al., 2020). Proximal forms of stress are also associated with behaviors that may lead to sexual assault. For instance, Polihronakis et al. (2021) demonstrated that internalized biphobia is significantly related to sexual promiscuity via indirect substance use pathways. Similar findings indicate internalized cisgenderism predicts substance use problems (Katz-Wise et al., 2021), which are positively correlated with risky sexual behaviors in minority groups (c.f., Vosburgh et al., 2012).

Current Study

While prior findings show assault victimization is disproportionate in SGM groups compared to heterosexual and cisgender individuals, these findings are primarily constrained to homogenous grouping. Moreover, much of the past research focuses on gay/lesbian, bisexual, and to some extent transgender individuals. Less is known about assault rates in emerging identity groups, such as those who identify as pansexual, demisexual, and asexual. Moreover, many GNC individuals also hold minority sexual identities; few studies have examined assault rates across SGM identities, while holding gender and sexual identities constant. We sought to address these gaps in the literature.

Three research questions guided our analyses: (RQ1) What are the past year base rates of emotional, physical, and sexual assault victimization across heterosexual, gay/lesbian, questioning, bisexual, queer, pansexual, asexual, and demisexual individuals? (RQ2) What are the past year base rates of emotional, physical, and sexual assault victimization across cisgender men, cisgender women, GNC individual’s male assigned at birth (MAB), and GNC individuals female assigned at birth (FAB)? (RQ3) To what extent do rates of past year emotional, physical, and sexual assault victimization differ across SGM groups compared to cisgender and heterosexual individuals?

Using the minority stress framework (Meyer, 2003) as a conceptual guide, we generated two broad hypotheses: (H1) Sexual minority individuals will report significantly more emotional, physical, and sexual assault experiences compared to heterosexual individuals. (H2) GNC individuals will report significantly more emotional, physical, and sexual assault experiences compared to cisgender individuals. We also provided a series of exploratory analyses examining how past year emotional, physical, and sexual assault victimization is associated with depression symptoms split across SGM identity groups. This was done to contextualize our findings as being relevant to mental health concerns and to provide useful information to future researchers conducting reviews/meta-analyses.

Method

Participants/Procedure

Data used for this study came from 2020 to 2021 Healthy Minds Study (HMS), a large health survey gathered through the Healthy Minds Network (2021). Initial participants included N = 137,916 undergraduate/graduate college students attending 140 institutions of higher education across the United States. Institutions ranged from public universities to community colleges. For further information regarding the HMS, please see their website (https://healthymindsnetwork.org/hms). In total, N = 119,181 participants had data fit for analyses (participant organization/removal criteria are available in Supplemental File 1). Table 1 provides specific demographic breakdowns.

Table 1.

Study Sample Demographic Characteristics Stratified by Gender and Sexual Identity.

Variables	Gender identity				Sexual identity
Variables	Cisgender men	Cisgender women	GNC MAB	GNC FAB	Heterosexual	Gay/lesbian	Bisexual	Questioning	Queer	Pansexual	Asexual	Demisexual
Sex at birth (n, %)
Male	32,625 (100%)	—	739 (100%)	—	28,126 (30.8%)	2,021 (47.4%)	1,827 (13.7%)	661 (15.4%)	456 (12.2%)	99 (9.8%)	149 (13.5%)	27 (13.6%)
Female	—	82,410 (100%)	—	3,407 (100%)	63,154 (69.2%)	2,246 (52.6%)	11,461 (86.3%)	3,627 (84.6%)	3,289 (87.8%)	914 (90.2%)	953 (86.5%)	171 (86.4%)
Race/ethnicity (n, %)
White	21,988 (67.4%)	56,082 (68.1%)	572 (77.4%)	2,717 (79.7%)	60,896 (66.7%)	3,066 (71.9%)	9,779 (73.6%)	2,950 (68.8%)	2,872 (76.7%)	760 (75.0%)	890 (80.8%)	156 (78.8%)
Black	2,975 (9.1%)	10,237 (12.4%)	55 (7.4%)	286 (8.4%)	10,555 (11.6%)	491 (11.5%)	1,427 (10.7%)	480 (11.2%)	380 (10.1%)	134 (13.2%)	76 (6.9%)	10 (5.1%)
Asian	5,341 (16.4%)	10,836 (13.1%)	78 (10.6%)	352 (10.3%)	13,287 (14.6%)	471 (11.0%)	1,488 (11.2%)	697 (16.3%)	421 (11.2%)	81 (8.0%)	135 (12.3%)	27 (13.6%)
Native American	450 (1.4%)	1,276 (1.5%)	16 (2.2%)	83 (2.4%)	1,277 (1.4%)	81 (1.9%)	264 (2.0%)	75 (1.7%)	72 (1.9%)	23 (2.3%)	28 (2.5%)	5 (2.5%)
Hispanic	3,516 (10.8%)	9,438 (11.5%)	91 (12.3%)	384 (11.3%)	9,928 (10.9%)	553 (13.0%)	1,716 (12.9%)	522 (12.2%)	455 (12.1%)	144 (14.2%)	90 (8.2%)	21 (10.6%)
Middle Eastern	805 (2.5%)	1,644 (2.0%)	16 (2.2%)	52 (1.5%)	2,043 (2.2%)	53 (1.2%)	224 (1.7%)	102 (2.4%)	70 (1.9%)	9 (0.9%)	12 (1.1%)	4 (2.0%)
Pacific Islander	223 (0.7%)	564 (0.7%)	7 (0.9%)	25 (0.7%)	605 (0.7%)	26 (0.6%)	117 (0.9%)	32 (0.7%)	27 (0.7%)	6 (0.6%)	5 (0.5%)	1 (0.5%)
Gender identity (n, %)
Cisgender men	32,625 (100%)	—	—	—	28,062 (30.7%)	1,887 (44.2%)	1,628 (12.3%)	601 (14.0%)	244 (6.5%)	55 (5.4%)	122 (11.1%)	26 (13.1%)
Cisgender women	—	82,410 (100%)	—	—	63,064 (69.1%)	1,839 (43.1%)	10,596 (79.7%)	3,462 (80.7%)	1,988 (53.1%)	669 (66.0%)	665 (60.3%)	127 (64.1%)
GNC MAB	—	—	739 (100%)	—	64 (0.1%)	133 (3.1%)	199 (1.5%)	60 (1.4%)	211 (5.6%)	44 (4.3%)	27 (2.5%)	1 (0.5%)
GNC FAB	—	—	—	3,407 (100%)	90 (0.1%)	408 (9.6%)	865 (6.5%)	165 (3.8%)	1,302 (34.8%)	245 (24.2%)	288 (26.1%)	44 (22.2%)
Sexual identity (n, %)
Heterosexual	28,062 (86.0%)	63,064 (76.5%)	64 (8.7%)	90 (2.6%)	91,280 (100%)	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Gay/lesbian	1,887 (5.8%)	1,839 (2.2%)	133 (18.0%)	408 (12.0%)	—	4,267 (100%)	—	—	—	—	—	—
Bisexual	1,628 (5.0%)	10,596 (12.9%)	199 (26.9%)	865 (25.4%)	—	—	13,288 (100%)	—	—	—	—	—
Questioning	601 (1.8%)	3,462 (4.2%)	60 (8.1%)	165 (4.8%)	—	—	—	4,288 (100%)	—	—	—	—
Queer	244 (0.7%)	1,988 (2.4%)	211 (28.6%)	1,302 (38.2%)	—	—	—	—	3,745 (100%)	—	—	—
Pansexual	55 (0.2%)	669 (0.8%)	44 (6.0%)	245 (7.2%)	—	—	—	—	—	1,013 (100%)	—	—
Asexual	122 (0.4%)	665 (0.8%)	27 (3.7%)	288 (8.5%)	—	—	—	—	—	—	1,102 (100%)	—
Demisexual	26 (0.1%)	127 (0.2%)	1 (0.1%)	44 (1.3%)	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	198 (100%)
Age (M, SD)	23.91 (7.4%)	23.64 (7.3%)	22.79 (5.6%)	21.83 (4.7%)	24.08 (7.8%)	23.70 (7.11%)	22.13 (4.9%)	21.07 (3.8%)	22.80 (5.2%)	22.32 (4.9%)	21.58 (4.4%)	22.24 (4.4%)
PHQ-9 (M, SD)	7.89 (6.3%)	9.46 (6.5%)	13.22 (6.9%)	14.41 (6.6%)	8.23 (6.2%)	10.85 (6.90%)	12.60 (6.7%)	12.11 (6.5%)	12.93 (6.4%)	14.36 (6.7%)	12.48 (6.7%)	12.92 (6.2%)
Alpha for PHQ-9	.90	.90	.89	.88	.90	.90	.90	.89	.88	.89	.88	.87

Note. Participants were allowed to choose more than one race/ethnicity category. GNC = gender nonconforming; MAB = male assigned at birth; FAB = female assigned at birth; PHQ-9 = Patient Health Questionnaire-9.

Measures

Emotional, physical, and sexual assault

Past year emotional assault was measured with the single item: “Over the past 12 months, were you called names, yelled at, humiliated, judged, threatened, coerced, or controlled by another person?” Participants responded by selecting “yes” or “no.” Past year physical assault was measured with the single item: “Over the past 12 months, were you kicked, slapped, punched or otherwise physically mistreated by another person?” Participants responded by selecting “yes” or “no.” Past year sexual assault was measured with the single item: “In the past 12 months, has anyone had unwanted sexual contact with you? (Please count any experience of unwanted sexual contact [e.g., touching of your sexual body parts, oral sex, anal sex, sexual intercourse, and penetration of your vagina or anus with a finger or object] that you did not consent to and did not want to happen regardless of where it happened).” Participants were then able to select “yes” or “no.” Participants were also provided additional information regarding sexual assault/consent (see Supplemental File 2).

Depression

Depression symptoms were appraised using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (Kroenke et al., 2001). Ratings are made on a 4-point scale (0 = Not at all; 1 = Several days; 2 = More than half the days; 3 = Nearly every day). Scores were summed with higher values indicating greater depressive symptoms. Cronbach’s alpha are available on Table 1.

Primary Analytic Plan

To address RQ1 and RQ2, base rates for SGM groups were calculated across indicators of past year emotional, physical, and sexual assault. To enhance interpretability, we also calculated the cumulative multivariate base rates of experiencing multiple types of assault split by SGM group (e.g., the base rate of experiencing one or more types of assault). To address RQ3 and our hypotheses, we constructed three logistic regressions each with emotional, physical, and sexual assault entered as outcome variables. In each logistic regression, sexual and gender identities were entered as predictors. Heterosexual was the referent for the sexual identity indicator and cisgender man was the referent for the gender identity indicator. Odds ratios from the logistic regressions were the metric of interpretation. All odds ratios were adjusted by the relative contributions of gender and sexual identity in association with assault indicators. For our exploratory aim, we constructed a series of point-biserial correlation matrices that included the bivariate correlation between each assault variable and depression score split by group.

Results

Across the entire sample, 27.1% (n = 32,279) of participants reported experiencing emotional assault within the past 12 months (n = 163 did not respond); 5.6% (n = 6,641) reported experiencing physical assault within the past 12 months (n = 236 did not respond); and 7.5% reported experiencing sexual assault within the past 12 months (n = 219 did not respond). Regarding omnibus multivariate base rates, 69.1% (n = 82,326) of participants denied experiencing any assault in the past 12 months, 23% (n = 27,450) reported experiencing just one type of assault, 6.6% (n = 7,882) reported experiencing two types of assaults, and 1.3% (n = 1,523) reported experiencing all three types of assault. Cumulatively, 30.9% (n = 36,855) of participants reported at least one type of assault within the past 12 months.

To address RQ1, we calculated the base rates of past year emotional, physical, and sexual assault across sexual identity groups (see Table 2). Heterosexual participants reported the lowest base rates of emotional, physical, and sexual assault. Heterosexual individuals also were the least likely to experience multiple assaults. Gay/lesbian and asexual individuals tended to report the next fewest assault experiences compared to heterosexuals, followed by questioning individuals. Depending on indicator, bisexual and queer individuals tended to report the next highest base rates of assault across conditions (see Table 2). Finally, pansexual and demisexual individuals tended to report the most assault experiences. This was evident across assault types and when considering multivariate base rates. Notably, demisexual individuals displayed the highest base rate of experiencing at least one assault experience (49.5% compared to 27.6% of heterosexual individuals) and the highest base rate of emotional assault (45.7%). Pansexual individuals reported the highest base rate of physical assault (12.5%), sexual assault (17.3%), and experiencing all three types of assault (4.7%).

Table 2.

Base Rate (%) of Past Year Assault Across Gender and Sexual Identities.

identity Variables	Assault type in the past 12 months			Cumulative nultivariate base rate
identity Variables	Emotional (%)	Physical (%)	Sexual (%)	0 (%)	1 or more (%)	2 or more (%)	3 (%)
Gender identity
Cisgender men (n = 32,625)	22.6	5.5	2.4	75.3	24.7	5.2	0.5
Cisgender women (n = 82,410)	28.1	5.5	9.2	67.5	32.5	8.7	1.5
Gender nonconforming MAB (n = 739)	40.1	8.7	8.0	56.5	43.4	11.5	1.8
Gender nonconforming FAB (n = 3,407)	43.1	8.2	14.2	51.8	48.2	14.0	3.1
Sexual identity
Heterosexual (n = 91,280)	24.3	4.9	5.8	72.4	27.6.	6.4	0.9
Gay/lesbian (n = 4,267)	33.7	7.0	7.5	62.4	37.6	9.1	1.5
Bisexual (n = 13,288)	37.3	8.6	14.6	56.7	43.3	14.2	2.9
Questioning (n = 4,288)	33.9	6.8	12.5	60.2	39.8	11.4	2.0
Queer (n = 3,745)	37.9	6.1	13.1	57.1	42.9	12.1	2.1
Pansexual (n = 1,013)	43.3	12.5	17.3	50.6	49.4	18.9	4.7
Asexual (n = 1,102)	32.5	5.9	7.1	64.0	36.0	8.4	1.0
Demisexual (n = 198)	45.7	9.6	10.6	50.5	49.5	12.1	4.0

Note. Cumulative multivariate base rate indicates the minimum number of different types of assaults experienced within the past 12 months. MAB = male assigned at birth; FAB = female assigned at birth.

To address RQ2, we calculated the base rates of emotional, physical, and sexual assault across gender identity groups (see Table 2). Cisgender men and women reported equal rates of physical assault (5.5%), but otherwise cisgender men reported the lowest base rates of emotional and sexual assault. Cisgender women reported the second lowest base rates across assault types, followed by GNC MAB individuals, and GNC FAB individuals. This pattern remained when considering the multivariate base rates (cisgender men reported the least assault experiences, whereas GNC FAB individuals reported the most, see Table 2).

Assault by Sexual Identity

Emotional assault

Relative to heterosexual individuals, the adjusted odds of experiencing emotional assault within the past 12 months were 1.58 (95% CI [1.48, 1.69]) for gay/lesbian individuals, 1.74 (95% CI [1.67, 1.81]) for bisexual individuals, 1.52 (95% CI [1.42, 1.62]) for questioning individuals, 1.59 (95% CI [1.48, 1.72]) for queer individuals, 2.07 (95% CI [1.82, 2.35]) for pansexual individuals, 1.32 (95% CI [1.16, 1.50]) for asexual individuals, and 2.35 (95% CI [1.77, 3.12]) for demisexual individuals (see Table 3).

Table 3.

Logistic Regression Model Predicting Past Year Emotional Assault (N = 119,018).

Variables	B	SE	Adjusted OR	95% CI OR		n
Variables	B	SE	Adjusted OR	Lower	Upper	n
Gender identity
Cisgender men (referent)	—	—	—	—	—	32,578
Cisgender women	0.24	0.02	1.27***	1.23	1.31	82,298
Gender nonconforming MAB	0.45	0.08	1.56***	1.34	1.82	739
Gender nonconforming FAB	0.55	0.04	1.73***	1.59	1.87	3,403
Sexual identity
Heterosexual (referent)	—	—	—	—	—	91,155
Gay/lesbian	0.46	0.03	1.58***	1.48	1.69	4,260
Bisexual	0.55	0.02	1.74***	1.67	1.81	13,274
Questioning	0.42	0.03	1.52***	1.42	1.62	4,276
Queer	0.47	0.04	1.59***	1.48	1.72	3,743
Pansexual	0.73	0.07	2.07***	1.82	2.35	1,012
Asexual	0.27	0.07	1.32***	1.16	1.50	1,101
Demisexual	0.86	0.14	2.35***	1.77	3.12	197

Note. n = 163 had incomplete data and were not included in this analysis. MAB = male assigned at birth; FAB = female assigned at birth.

***

p < .001.

Physical assault

Relative to heterosexual individuals, adjusted odds of experiencing physical assault within the past 12 months were 1.41 (95% CI [1.24, 1.59]) for gay/lesbian individuals, 1.83 (95% CI [1.71, 1.96]) for bisexual individuals, 1.42 (95% CI [1.26, 1.61]) for questioning individuals, 1.20 (95% CI [1.04, 1.39]) for queer individuals, 2.67 (95% CI [2.20, 3.24]) for pansexual individuals, and 2.00 (95% CI [1.25, 3.22]) for demisexual individuals. Identifying as asexual was not associated with a significant increase in the adjusted odds of experiencing physical assault (adjusted OR = 1.18, 95% CI [0.91, 1.52]; (see Table 4).

Table 4.

Logistic Regression Model Predicting Past Year Physical Assault (N = 118,945).

Variables	B	SE	Adjusted OR	95% CI OR		n
Variables	B	SE	Adjusted OR	Lower	Upper	n
Gender identity
Cisgender men (referent)	—	—	—	—	—	32,561
Cisgender women	−0.06	0.03	0.94*	0.89	1.00	82,247
Gender nonconforming MAB	0.17	0.14	1.19	0.91	1.55	739
Gender nonconforming FAB	0.10	0.08	1.10	0.95	1.28	3,398
Sexual identity
Heterosexual (referent)	—	—	—	—	—	91,096
Gay/lesbian	0.34	0.06	1.41***	1.24	1.59	4,263
Bisexual	0.61	0.04	1.83***	1.71	1.96	13,265
Questioning	0.35	0.06	1.42***	1.26	1.61	4,273
Queer	0.18	0.08	1.20*	1.04	1.39	3,741
Pansexual	0.98	0.10	2.67***	2.20	3.24	1,010
Asexual	0.16	0.13	1.18	0.91	1.52	1,099
Demisexual	0.70	0.24	2.00**	1.25	3.22	198

Note. n = 236 had incomplete data and were not included in this analysis. MAB = male assigned at birth; FAB = female assigned at birth.

p < .05. ** p < .01. ***p < .001.

Sexual assault

Relative to heterosexual individuals, adjusted odds of experiencing sexual assault within the past 12 months were 1.57 (95% CI [1.40, 1.77]) for gay/lesbian individuals, 2.36 (95% CI [2.23, 2.50]) for bisexual individuals, 2.01 (95% CI [1.83, 2.21]) for questioning individuals, 2.00 (95% CI [1.79, 2.23]) for queer individuals, 2.74 (95% CI [2.32, 3.25]) for pansexual individuals, and 1.63 (95% CI [1.03, 2.57]) for demisexual individuals. Identifying as asexual was not associated with a significant increase in the adjusted odds of experiencing sexual assault (adjusted OR = 1.04, 95% CI [0.82, 1.31]; (see Table 5).

Table 5.

Logistic Regression Model Predicting Past Year Sexual Assault (N = 118,962).

Variables	B	SE	Adjusted OR	95% CI OR		n
Variables	B	SE	Adjusted OR	Lower	Upper	n
Gender identity
Cisgender men (referent)	—	—	—	—	—	32,581
Cisgender women	1.32	0.04	3.74***	3.47	4.03	82,245
Gender nonconforming MAB	0.73	0.14	2.09***	1.57	2.75	739
Gender nonconforming FAB	1.36	0.07	3.88***	3.41	4.43	3,397
Sexual identity
Heterosexual (referent)						91,108
Gay/lesbian	0.45	0.06	1.57***	1.40	1.77	4,261
Bisexual	0.86	0.03	2.36***	2.23	2.50	13,272
Questioning	0.70	0.05	2.01***	1.83	2.21	4,275
Queer	0.69	0.06	2.00***	1.79	2.23	3,737
Pansexual	1.01	0.09	2.74***	2.32	3.25	1,013
Asexual	0.04	0.12	1.04	0.82	1.31	1,098
Demisexual	0.49	0.23	1.63*	1.03	2.57	198

Note. n = 219 had incomplete data and were not included in this analysis. MAB = male assigned at birth; FAB = female assigned at birth.

p < .05. ***p < .001.

Assault by Gender Identity

Emotional assault

Compared to cisgender men, adjusted odds of experiencing emotional assault in the past 12 months were 1.56 (95% CI [1.34, 1.82]) for GNC MAB individuals and 1.73 (95% CI [1.59, 1.87]) for GNC FAB individuals. Notably, there was also a 1.27 (95% CI [1.23, 1.31]) increase in the adjusted odds of experiencing emotional assault in the past 12 months for cisgender women compared to cisgender men (see Table 3).

Physical assault

Identifying as GNC was not associated with a significant increase in the adjusted odds of experiencing physical assault within the past 12 months compared to cisgender men, while holding sexual identity constant (see Table 4). Specifically, compared to cisgender men, adjusted odds of experiencing physical assault in the past 12 months increased (non-significant) 1.19 (95% CI [0.91, 1.55]) for GNC MAB and 1.10 (95% CI [0.95, 1.28]) for GNC FAB individuals. There was a significant decrease in the adjusted odds of experiencing physical assault in the past 12 months for cisgender women compared to cisgender men (adjusted OR = 0.94, 95% CI [0.89, 1.00].

Sexual assault

Relative to cisgender men, the adjusted odds of experiencing sexual assault in the past 12 months were 2.08 (95% CI [1.57, 2.75]) for GNC MAB individuals and 3.88 (95% CI [3.41, 4.23]) for GNC FAB individuals. There was also a significant increase in the adjusted odds of experiencing sexual assault in the past 12 months for cisgender women compared to cisgender men (adjusted OR = 3.74, 95% CI [3.47, 4.03] (see Table 5).

Point-Biserial Correlations Between Assault Experiences and Depression Symptoms

Results from the full correlation matrix are available in Supplementary File 3. Notably, experiencing each assault was significantly and positively associated with depressive symptoms regardless of identity group. The strength of the correlations were modest, irrespective of identity, and similar in size across groups. Emotional assault was generally the strongest correlate of depressive symptoms across groups, with the strongest correlation in demisexual individuals (r = .33, p < .001). Weaker correlations were broadly observed between physical assault and depressive symptoms, with the smallest correlation in asexual individuals (r = .08, p < .01).

Discussion

Our results indicate that SGM college students experience disproportionate rates of assault within the past 12 months compared to majoritized students. Concurrently, SGM identity was differentially associated with assault rates. Regardless of identity, emotional assault was the most prevalent form of assault reported. Further, all SGM groups had significantly higher odds of reporting an emotional assault in the past 12 months compared to heterosexual and cisgender students. Base rates of sexual and physical assault, though lower than emotional assault, were also overrepresented in SGM students, particularly for sexual assault. Taken together, these findings are consistent with the breadth of literature suggesting SGM individuals are at-risk of being emotionally, physically, and sexually assaulted (Katz-Wise & Hyde, 2012; Kosciw et al., 2020; Roberts et al., 2013). Our results extend the literature by providing estimated past year base rates of emotional, physical, and sexual assault across specific SGM college students by identity.

Regarding sexual identity, heterosexual students reported lowest rates of all types of assault within the past 12 months. In a similar vein, when observing the multivariate base rates, heterosexual students reported the lowest base rate of cumulative assault experiences. Consistent with literature indicating gay/lesbian students report fewer mental health symptoms compared to students from non-monosexual identities (e.g., Borgogna et al., 2019), gay/lesbian individuals generally reported fewer assault experiences compared to other sexual minority groups. Asexual students represented a notable exception, reporting the fewest assault experiences across dimensions (aside from heterosexual students). Asexual individuals also did not differ in their odds of reporting a sexual or physical assault within the past 12 months compared to heterosexual students—the only non-significant comparisons between a sexual minority group and heterosexual students. Functionally, asexual and gay/lesbian students did not differ much in terms of assault experiences (e.g., 37.6% of gay/lesbian individuals reported one or more assault experiences compared to 36% of asexual individuals). Questioning students also reported similar, although slightly higher, frequencies across assault dimensions (39.8% reporting one or more assault experiences).

Conceptually, reasons for gay/lesbian, questioning, and asexual students having the fewest assault experiences (after heterosexual students) could be multifaceted. Gay/lesbian identities are historically the most visible and, perhaps, the most accepted in heteronormative spaces. Gay/lesbian individuals typically do not experience the same levels of oppression as do “minority-minority” individuals. For example, bisexual individuals experience bi-negative stereotypes (Rubinstein et al., 2013), and queer and pansexual individuals are more likely to be associated with GNC identities (Morandini et al., 2017), and by extension, the target of gender discriminations.

Since gay/lesbian individuals are more accepted, they may be less likely targets of emotional and physical assaults, compared to other sexual minority groups. By extension, with less distal stress, gay/lesbian individuals would also be less likely to have proximal stressors, such as internalized heterosexism. This is important, as proximal forms of minority stress have been positively linked to substance use (Lehavot & Simoni, 2011), which in turn is indirectly linked to risky sexual behaviors and assault (Kashubeck-West & Szymanski, 2008; Polihronakis et al., 2021). Thus, possible reductions in internalized heterosexism may help explain reduced sexual assault frequencies (compared to other sexual minority groups) within the past 12 months for gay/lesbians individuals.

Additional explanations for asexual and questioning students having lower assault rates may be associated with their ability to “pass” as heterosexual in heteronormative spaces. For instance, many asexual individuals do not have formal partners, thereby limiting their ability to be targeted as non-heterosexual. Qualitative research also indicates some asexual individuals withhold information about their identity in social spaces in order to protect themselves in contexts where heterosexuality is assumed (MacNeela & Murphy, 2014). While such practices are unfortunate, they represent a coping technique that is likely helpful in reducing assault.

Questioning individuals might use a similar approach by not outwardly expressing a non-heterosexual identity. For example, some individuals who are questioning their sexual identity might still be presenting as heterosexual. Indeed, past research has shown that as many as 67% of exclusively heterosexual women have questioned their sexual identity (Morgan & Thompson, 2011). It should be noted that while questioning individuals reported similar rates of emotional (33.9% vs. 33.7%) and physical (6.8% vs. 7.0%) assault compared to gay/lesbian individuals, they reported a higher base rate of sexual assault experiences (12.5% vs. 7.5%). Follow-up studies should explore this finding in more detail. For instance, it would be important to know the temporal order of events regarding the questioning status relative to sexual assault, as well as other contextual factors (e.g., relationship to perpetrator).

Bisexual, queer, pansexual, and demisexual college students tended to report the next highest frequencies of assault, with pansexual and demisexual students reporting the highest frequencies depending on the assault experience. When holding constant gender identity, demisexual individuals showed the highest odds of reported emotional assault, while pansexual individuals yielded the highest odds of physical and sexual assault compared to heterosexual students. Reasons for these findings might be associated with bisexual, queer, pansexual, and demisexual individuals having less historical visibility within society (Hayfield, 2020). Additive minority stressors associated with experiencing sexual attraction outside the binary and potentially also expressing gender outside the binary may also explain the increased assault rates, particularly for queer and pansexual individuals.

Findings across sexual identities are further contextualized by considering differences in gender identity. Individuals from non-cisgender identities reported elevated risk of sexual assault while holding sexual identity constant. Specifically, compared to cisgender men, GNC FAB participants individuals reported a 288% increase in the odds of experiencing sexual assault within the past 12 months—the strongest relation across all analyses. This association was also observed when comparing GNC FAB participants to cisgender women. A possible explanation for the increase in sexual assault for GNC FAB individuals compared to cisgender women may be the fetishization of GNC bodies (Cook-Daniels, 2015). That is, GNC FAB individuals must navigate sexist social risks associated with having female anatomies in addition to the additive risk GNC confers to their bodies.

Importantly, while GNC MAB individuals reported fewer sexual assault experiences compared to cisgender women and GNC FAB individuals, they still reported a 109% increase in odds of experiencing a sexual assault within the past 12 months compared to cisgender men (when holding sexual identity constant). Moreover, past research has documented fetishization to be a factor in GNC MAB individuals’ (particularly transfeminine individuals) sexual assault experiences (Matsuzaka & Koch, 2018; Ussher et al., 2020), which may partially explain the disparity.

Emotional assault rates were also higher in GNC MAB and GNC FAB individuals compared to cisgender men and women. This is likely associated with harassment GNC individuals receive as a function of their identifying with genders not conforming to their sex assigned at birth. However, physical assault rates were approximately equal across gender groups. Notably, cisgender men and women reported identical univariate base rates of physical assault (5.5% each). When holding sexual identity constant, cisgender women had significantly lower odds of experiencing a physical assault compared to cisgender men. This discrepancy suggests sexual identity matters when considering gender base rates of physical assault. Encouragingly, while past research suggests GNC individuals are at higher risk for physical violence victimization (James et al., 2016), we found no significant physical assault differences between cisgender men and GNC students. This finding suggests that college campuses may be a place of relative respite (from physical violence) compared to other environments.

Consistent with past research, all forms of assault were significantly positively correlated with depression symptoms across identity groups (Backhaus et al., 2021; Espelage et al., 2019; Hall, 2018; Hatchel et al., 2018). Correlations were approximately equal in strength across groups. All associations were small in magnitude, with the largest correlation between emotional assault and depression for demisexual individuals (r = .33). When observing correlational patterns, emotional assault tended to be a stronger correlate of depression across groups (all r’s > .20), whereas the correlations between physical and sexual assault with depression symptoms tended to be weaker (though still positive and significant). These findings highlight the psychological damage related to emotional assault.

Limitations

The cross-sectional nature of our findings preclude the ability to draw causal inferences. Next, we relied on self-reports of identities, depressive symptoms, and experienced assaults. This may have introduced unreliability and unsystematic error in the present study, thereby threatening validity. Many individuals experience fluctuations and/or changes in their sexual and gender identities. As such, the current findings only represent participants’ expressions at one point in time. Furthermore, current labels may not fully capture each sexual and gender identity experience. Many non-cisgender individuals also hold minoritized sexual identities; as such, intersectional studies examining how holding multiple minoritized identities might be associated with compounded assault experiences is warranted. All odds ratios were adjusted for the contributions of sexual and gender identity. However, we did not calculate specific base rates by gender and sexual identity (e.g., gay cisgender women and lesbian cisgender women). Future researchers may consider taking such an approach to obtain more specific base rates. While data presented in this study came from a robust national sample, individuals included were of a circumscribed population (i.e., college students). Whether our findings generalize to non-college student populations is unclear. While we had a diverse sample, we did not explore how race and/or ethnic identity may have influenced findings. We encourage future researchers to explore how race intersects with SGM identities in relation to assault experiences. Finally, as is common in survey-based research, there may have been inherent self-selection biases in our study sample.

Clinical Implications and Future Directions

Our findings indicate many SGM individuals experience assault events that may not be recognized by the DSM-5 as Criterion A traumas (e.g., emotional assaults). Regardless of whether an event qualifies as a Criterion A trauma, an individual’s interpretation of an event best predicts its psychological impact (Lathan et al., 2021; Martin et al., 2013). Based on the current findings, in addition to Criterion A’s narrow definition, we suggest clinicians integrate histories of assault experiences into conceptualizations, especially for non-monosexual and GNC individuals. In response to similar concerns, many clinicians and researchers have called to expand Criterion A to include a wider array of events (Kilpatrick et al., 2009; Weathers & Keane, 2007). This is relevant for SGM individuals, who experience higher rates of assault, especially emotional assault, compared to cisgender/heterosexual individuals. While these experiences might not qualify as Criterion A “trauma,” they may be “traumatizing.” Thus, clinicians need to consider potentially traumatizing aspects of various assault experiences, even if they do not meet Criterion A.

Clinicians should also be mindful of the discrepancies in assault frequencies across different SGM groups. Those identifying as non-monosexual and GNC reported considerably higher base rates across assault types. Clinicians are encouraged to assess presentations in a manner that does not needlessly re-activate traumas. For instance, being mindful of appropriate pronoun use, using preferred references to significant others (e.g., partner), and using altogether inclusive language are practical steps for most clinicians to make. Concurrently, it is important for clinicians to assess the degree to which assault experiences might relate to presenting symptoms, such as depression. Our findings suggest that a diversity of connections dependent upon identity and assault type exist with depression, but many of those connections are quite small. Some assault experiences may not be clinically meaningful. Thus, it should not be assumed that certain assault experiences are connected with depression symptoms. Rather, such judgments should only be made after appropriate assessment. Given many participants indicated experiencing multiple assaults, clinicians may need to create assault hierarchies to target salient symptoms in a way that has the greatest chance of generalization to other assault experiences.

College administrators should be mindful of the prevalence of assault on campuses and take efforts to reduce SGM assault experiences. Past research has shown that many survivors of assault do not utilize campus resources, such as counseling centers and Title IX offices (Holland & Cortina, 2017). Efforts might involve facilitating/funding safe zone trainings, awareness campaigns, and/other outreach programs for students, faculty, and staff. Administrators should also conduct internal surveys of assault experiences to examine specific points for adjustment.

Additional research comparing the impact of assault events that meet Criterion A trauma and those that do not, such as discrimination, sexual stigma, race-related stress, and poverty, on SGM individuals’ psychological health and well-being is also warranted. It will be crucial for future researchers to collect longitudinal data to determine the differing sequelae associated with assaults across SGM identities over time. Furthermore, continued lines of qualitative studies investigating unique narratives associated with varying assault types in SGM will help contextualize our understanding of assault in SGM populations.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-jiv-10.1177_08862605221124253 – Supplemental material for Sexual and Gender Minority Victimization: Base Rates of Assault in College Students Across Sexual and Gender Identities

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-jiv-10.1177_08862605221124253 for Sexual and Gender Minority Victimization: Base Rates of Assault in College Students Across Sexual and Gender Identities by Nicholas C. Borgogna, Emma C. Lathan and Stephen L. Aita in Journal of Interpersonal Violence

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-2-jiv-10.1177_08862605221124253 – Supplemental material for Sexual and Gender Minority Victimization: Base Rates of Assault in College Students Across Sexual and Gender Identities

Supplemental material, sj-docx-2-jiv-10.1177_08862605221124253 for Sexual and Gender Minority Victimization: Base Rates of Assault in College Students Across Sexual and Gender Identities by Nicholas C. Borgogna, Emma C. Lathan and Stephen L. Aita in Journal of Interpersonal Violence

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-3-jiv-10.1177_08862605221124253 – Supplemental material for Sexual and Gender Minority Victimization: Base Rates of Assault in College Students Across Sexual and Gender Identities

Supplemental material, sj-docx-3-jiv-10.1177_08862605221124253 for Sexual and Gender Minority Victimization: Base Rates of Assault in College Students Across Sexual and Gender Identities by Nicholas C. Borgogna, Emma C. Lathan and Stephen L. Aita in Journal of Interpersonal Violence

Footnotes

Author Contribution

All authors agree to be accountable for ensuring the integrity and accuracy of this work.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interests with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.

ORCID iDs

Nicholas C. Borgogna

Stephen L. Aita

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author Biographies

Nicholas C. Borgogna, PhD is an Assistant Professor, Department of Psychological Sciences, Texas Tech University. Dr. Borgogna’s research focuses on the intersection between mental health and sexuality. Much of his research is on sexual and gender minority health/mental health disparities. He is interested in developing methods to treat/prevent assault in minoritized populations.

Emma C. Lathan, PhD is a Postdoctoral Fellow, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine. Dr. Lathan’s research examines interpersonal trauma exposure among women and how post-trauma interaction with the criminal justice and healthcare systems impacts victims’ health. She aims to enhance patient and provider health outcomes through system-wide adoption and evaluation of trauma-informed care.

Stephen L. Aita, PhD, is a Licensed Neuropsychologist working at the Maine Healthcare Systems, Augusta, ME, USA. His specialty area is adult clinical neuropsychology. Dr. Aita’s research focus broadly involves studying individual differences within neuropsychological assessment. Specific interests include non-motor symptoms in movement disorders, executive functions, base rates, validity assessment, and psychometrics.

References

American Psychiatric Association. (2022). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 5th edition: DSM-5-TR. Author.

Backhaus

Lipson

S. K.

Fisher

L. B.

Kawachi

Pedrelli

(2021). Sexual assault, sense of belonging, depression and suicidality among LGBQ and heterosexual college students. Journal of American College Health, 69, 404–412. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2019.1679155

Björkenstam

Andersson

Cochran

Kosidou

(2017). Anxiety and depression among sexual minority women and men in Sweden: Is the risk equally spread within the sexual minority population? The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 14, 403. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JSXM.2017.01.012

Black

Basile

Breiding

Smith

Walter

Merrick

Chen

Stevens

(2011). National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey: 2010 summary report. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/NISVS_Report2010-a.pdf

Borgogna

N. C.

Aita

S. L.

Trask

C. L.

Moncrief

G. G.

(2022). Psychotic disorders in college students: Demographic and care considerations. Psychosis.Advanced online publication.https://doi.org/10.1080/17522439.2022.2039273

Borgogna

N. C.

McDermott

R. C.

(2020). Perceived discrimination is disproportionally associated with sexual minority mental health: Implications for non-monosexual sexual minorities. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Mental Health, 24, 20–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/19359705.2019.1644571

Borgogna

N. C.

McDermott

R. C.

Aita

S. L.

Kridel

M. M.

(2019). Anxiety and depression across gender and sexual minorities: Implications for transgender, gender nonconforming, pansexual, demisexual, asexual, queer, and questioning individuals. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 6, 54–63. https://doi.org/https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1037/sgd0000306

Button

D. M.

Candidate

O’connell

D. J.

Gealt

Med

M. A.

(2012). Sexual minority youth victimization and social support: The intersection of sexuality, gender, race, and victimization. Journal of Homosexuality, 59, 18–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2011.614903

Campbell

Dworkin

Cabral

(2009). An ecological model of the impact of sexual assault on women’s mental health. Trauma, Violence, and Abuse, 10, 225–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838009334456

10.

Cook

J. M.

Pilver

Dinnen

Schnurr

P. P.

Hoff

(2013). Prevalence of physical and sexual assault and mental health disorders in older women: Findings from a nationally representative sample. The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 21, 877–886. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JAGP.2013.01.016

11.

Cook-Daniels

(2015). Intimate partner violence in transgender couples: “Power and control” in a specific cultural context. Partner Abuse, 6, 126–139. https://doi.org/10.1891/1946-6560.6.1.126

12.

Dworkin

E. R.

(2020). Risk for mental disorders associated with sexual assault: A meta-analysis. Trauma, Violence, and Abuse, 21, 1011–1028. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838018813198

13.

Espelage

D. L.

Aragon

S. R.

Birkett

Koenig

B. W.

(2019). Homophobic teasing, psychological outcomes, and sexual orientation among high school students: What influence do parents and schools have? School Psychology Review, 37, 202–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2008.12087894

14.

Fedina

Holmes

J. L.

Backes

B. L.

(2018). Campus sexual assault: A systematic review of prevalence research from 2000 to 2015. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 19, 76–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838016631129

15.

Friedman

M. R.

Dodge

Schick

Herbenick

Hubach

R. D.

Bowling

Goncalves

Krier

Reece

(2014). From bias to bisexual health disparities: Attitudes toward bisexual men and women in the United States. LGBT Health, 1, 309–318. https://doi.org/10.1089/LGBT.2014.0005

16.

Ganson

K. T.

O’connor

Nagata

J. M.

(2022). Physical violence perpetration among college students: Prevalence and associations with substance use and mental health symptoms. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37, 13–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260521991888

17.

Gonzales

Loret

Mola

Gavulic

K. A.

McKay

Purcell

(2020). Mental health needs among lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender college students during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Journal of Adolescent Health, 67, 645–648. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JADOHEALTH.2020.08.006

18.

Green

K. E.

Feinstein

B. A.

(2012). Substance use in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: An update on empirical research and implications for treatment. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 26, 265–278. https://doi.org/10.1037/A0025424

19.

Hall

W. J.

(2018). Psychosocial risk and protective factors for depression among lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer youth: A systematic review. Journal of Homosexuality, 65, 263–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2017.1317467

20.

Hatchel

Espelage

D. L.

Huang

(2018). Sexual harassment victimization, school belonging, and depressive symptoms among LGBTQ adolescents: Temporal insights. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 88, 422–430. https://doi.org/10.1037/ort0000279

21.

Hayfield

(2020). Bisexual and pansexual identities: Exploring and challenging invisibility and invalidation. Routledge.

22.

Healthy Minds Network . (2021). Healthy minds study among colleges and universities, year [HMS 2020-2021]. Healthy Minds Network, University of Michigan, University of California Los Angeles, Boston University, and Wayne State University. https://healthymindsnetwork.org/research/data-for-researchers/

23.

Holland

K. J.

Cortina

L. M.

(2017). “It happens to girls all the time”: Examining sexual assault survivors’ reasons for not using campus supports. American Journal of Community Psychology, 59, 50–64. https://doi.org/10.1002/AJCP.12126

24.

House

A. S.

van Horn

Coppeans

Stepleman

L. M.

(2011). Interpersonal trauma and discriminatory events as predictors of suicidal and nonsuicidal self-injury in gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender persons. Traumatology, 17, 75–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534765610395621

25.

Huebner

Rebchook

Kegeles

(2004). Experiences of harassment, discrimination, and physical violence among young gay and bisexual men. American Journal of Public Health, 94, 1200–1203. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.94.7.1200

26.

James

S. E.

Herman

J. L.

Rankin

Keisling

Mottet

Anafi

(2016). The report of the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey. National Center for Transgender Equality. https://transequality.org/sites/default/files/docs/usts/USTSFullReport-FINAL1.6.17.pdf

27.

Johansen

V. A.

Wahl

A. K.

Eilertsen

D. E.

Hanestad

B. R.

Weisaeth

(2009). Acute psychological reactions in assault victims of non-domestic violence: Peritraumatic dissociation, post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety and depression. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry, 60, 452–462. https://doi.org/10.1080/08039480601021886

28.

Jordan

C. E.

Campbell

Follingstad

(2010). Violence and women’s mental health: The impact of physical, sexual, and psychological aggression. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 6, 607–628. https://doi.org/10.1146/ANNUREV-CLINPSY-090209-151437

29.

Kashubeck-West

Szymanski

D. M.

(2008). Risky sexual behavior in gay and bisexual men: Internalized heterosexism, sensation seeking, and substance use. The Counseling Psychologist, 36, 595–614. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000007309633

30.

Kattari

S. K.

Bakko

Langenderfer-Magruder

Holloway

B. T.

(2021). Transgender and nonbinary experiences of victimization in health care. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36, NP13054–NP13076. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260520905091

31.

Katz-Wise

S. L.

Hyde

J. S.

(2012). Victimization experiences of lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals: A meta-analysis. Journal of Sex Research, 49, 142–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2011.637247

32.

Katz-Wise

S. L.

Sarda

Bryn Austin

Harris

S. K.

(2021). Longitudinal effects of gender minority stressors on substance use and related risk and protective factors among gender minority adolescents. PLoS One, 16, e0250500. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250500

33.

Kilpatrick

D. G.

Resnick

H. S.

Acierno

(2009). Should PTSD criterion A be retained? Journal of Traumatic Stress, 22, 374–383. https://doi.org/10.1002/JTS.20436

34.

Kolp

Wilder

Andersen

Johnson

Horvath

Gidycz

C. A.

Shorey

(2020). Gender minority stress, sleep disturbance, and sexual victimization in transgender and gender nonconforming adults. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 76, 688–698. https://doi.org/10.1002/JCLP.22880

35.

Kosciw

J. G.

Clark

C. M.

Truong

N. L.

Zongrone

A. D.

(2020). The 2019 National School Climate Survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer youth in our nation’s schools. Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network.

36.

Kroenke

Spitzer

R. L.

Williams

J. B. W.

(2001). The PHQ-9: Validity of a brief depression severity measure. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 16, 606–613. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016009606.x

37.

Lathan

E. C.

Selwyn

C. N.

Langhinrichsen-Rohling

(2021). The “3 Es” of trauma-informed care in a federally qualified health center: Traumatic event- and experience-related predictors of physical and mental health effects among female patients. Journal of Community Psychology, 49, 703–724. https://doi.org/10.1002/JCOP.22488

38.

Lehavot

Simoni

J. M.

(2011). The impact of minority stress on mental health and substance use among sexual minority women. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 79, 170. https://doi.org/10.1037/A0022839

39.

MacGregor

K. E.

Villalta

Clarke

Viner

Kramer

Khadr

S. N.

(2019). A systematic review of short and medium-term mental health outcomes in young people following sexual assault. Journal of Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 31, 161–181. https://doi.org/10.2989/17280583.2019.1665533

40.

MacNeela

Murphy

(2014). Freedom, invisibility, and community: A qualitative study of self-identification with asexuality. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44, 799–812. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10508-014-0458-0

41.

Martin

C. G.

DePrince

A. P.

Cromer

L. D.

Freyd

J. J.

(2013). The role of cumulative trauma, betrayal, and appraisals in understanding trauma symptomatology. Psychological Trauma : Theory, Research, Practice and Policy, 52, 118. https://doi.org/10.1037/A0025686

42.

Martin-Storey

August

E. G

. (2016). Harassment due to gender nonconformity mediates the association between sexual minority identity and depressive symptoms. The Journal of Sex Research, 53, 85–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2014.980497

43.

Matsuzaka

Koch

D. E.

(2018). Trans feminine sexual violence experiences: The intersection of transphobia and misogyny. Affilia, 34, 28–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886109918790929

44.

McInnis

M. K.

Gauvin

S. E. M.

Blair

K. L.

Pukall

C. F.

(2022). Where does the “B” belong? Anti-bisexual experiences, self-stigma, and bisexual individuals’ sense of belonging. Journal of Bisexuality. Advanced online publication.https://doi.org/10.1080/15299716.2022.2031368

45.

Meyer

I. H.

(2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental 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

46.

Morandini

J. S.

Blaszczynski

Dar-Nimrod

(2017). Who adopts queer and pansexual sexual identities? Journal of Sex Research, 54, 911–922. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2016.1249332

47.

Morgan

E. M.

Thompson

E. M.

(2011). Processes of sexual orientation questioning among heterosexual women. Journal of Sex Research, 1, 16–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490903370594

48.

Polihronakis

C. J.

Velez

B. L.

Brewster

M. E.

(2021). Bisexual men’s sexual health: A test of minority stress theory. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 22, 201–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/MEN0000304

49.

Price

M. A.

Hollinsaid

N. L.

Bokhour

E. J.

Johnston

Skov

H. E.

Kaufman

G. W.

Sheridan

M. K.

Olezeski

(2021). Transgender and gender diverse youth’s experiences of gender-related adversity. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal. Advanced online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10560-021-00785-6

50.

Roberts

A. L.

Austin

S. B.

Corliss

H. L.

Vandermorris

A. K.

Koenen

K. C.

(2010). Pervasive trauma exposure among US sexual orientation minority adults and risk of posttraumatic stress disorder. American Journal of Public Health, 100, 2433–2441. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2009.168971

51.

Roberts

A. L.

Rosario

Slopen

Calzo

J. P.

Austin

S. B.

(2013). Childhood gender nonconformity, bullying victimization, and depressive symptoms across adolescence and early adulthood: An 11-year longitudinal study. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 52, 152. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JAAC.2012.11.006

52.

Rubinstein

Makov

Sarel

(2013). Don’t bi-negative: Reduction of negative attitudes toward bisexuals by blurring the gender dichotomy. Journal of Bisexuality, 13, 356–373. https://doi.org/10.1080/15299716.2013.813419

53.

Salim

S. R.

McConnell

A. A.

Messman-Moore

T. L.

(2020). Bisexual women’s experiences of stigma and verbal sexual coercion: The roles of internalized heterosexism and outness. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 44, 362–376. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684320917391

54.

Scheer

J. R.

Woulfe

J. M.

Goodman

L. A.

(2019). Psychometric validation of the identity abuse scale among LGBTQ individuals. Journal of Community Psychology, 47, 371–384. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.22126

55.

Schuler

M. S.

Stein

B. D.

Collins

R. L.

(2019). Differences in substance use disparities across age groups in a national cross-sectional survey of lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults. LGBT Health, 6, 68–76. https://doi.org/10.1089/LGBT.2018.0125

56.

Szymanski

D. M.

(2009). Examining potential moderators of the link between heterosexist events and gay and bisexual men’s psychological distress. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56, 142–151. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.56.1.142

57.

Temple

J. R.

Weston

Rodriguez

B. F.

Marshall

L. L.

(2007). Differing effects of partner and nonpartner sexual assault on women’s mental health. Violence Against Women, 13, 285–297. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801206297437

58.

Testa

R. J.

Habarth

Peta

Balsam

Bockting

(2015). Development of the gender minority stress and resilience measure. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 2, 65–77. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000081

59.

Ussher

J. M.

Hawkey

Perz

Liamputtong

Sekar

Marjadi

Schmied

Dune

Brook

(2020). Crossing boundaries and fetishization: Experiences of Sexual violence for trans women of color. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37, NP3552–NP3584. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260520949149

60.

Vosburgh

H. W.

Mansergh

Sullivan

P. S.

Purcell

D. W.

(2012). A review of the literature on event-level substance use and sexual risk behavior among men who have sex with men. AIDS and Behavior, 16, 1394–1410. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-011-0131-8

61.

Wadsworth

L. P.

Hayes-Skelton

S. A.

(2015). Differences among lesbian, gay, bisexual, heterosexual individuals, and those who reported an other identity on an open-ended response on levels of social anxiety. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 2, 181–187. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000092

62.

Wadsworth

Records

(2013). A review of the health effects of sexual assault on African American women and adolescents. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic & Neonatal Nursing, 42, 249–273. https://doi.org/10.1111/1552-6909.12041

63.

Walch

S. E.

Ngamake

S. T.

Bovornusvakool

Walker

S. V.

(2016). Discrimination, internalized homophobia, and concealment in sexual minority physical and mental health. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 3, 37–48. https://doi.org/10.1037/SGD0000146

64.

Weathers

F. W.

Keane

T. M.

(2007). The criterion a problem revisited: Controversies and challenges in defining and measuring psychological trauma. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 20, 107–121. https://doi.org/10.1002/JTS.20210

65.

Winberg

Coleman

Woodford

M. R.

McKie

R. M.

Travers

Renn

K. A.

(2019). Hearing “that’s so gay” and “no homo” on campus and substance use among sexual minority college students. Journal of Homosexuality, 66, 1472–1494. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2018.1542208

66.

Winstok

Straus

M. A.

(2014). Gender differences in the link between intimate partner physical violence and depression. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19, 91–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AVB.2014.01.003

67.

Woodford

M. R.

Howell

M. L.

Silverschanz

(2012). “That’s so gay!”: Examining the covariates of hearing this expression among gay, lesbian, and bisexual college students. Journal of American College Health, 60, 429–434. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2012.673519

68.

Woulfe

J. M.

Goodman

L. A.

(2020). Weaponized oppression: Identity abuse and mental health in the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer community. Psychology of Violence, 10, 100–109. https://doi.org/10.1037/VIO0000251

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB

0.01 MB