Frontiers in Sociology最新文献

Introduction: Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and all sexually and gender diverse (LGBTQ+) people experience discrimination across many contexts, including healthcare environments. While some research has shown transgender people and non-binary people often endure higher rates of marginalization than cisgender, sexually diverse people, past data are limited.

Methods: A sample of LGBTQ+ people (N = 173) in the United States completed an anonymous, online, self-reported survey, which included the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems and healthcare experience questions. Groups, including people who identified as cisgender, sexually diverse (n = 116), transgender (n = 24), and non-binary (n = 33), were compared using chi-square and multivariate analysis of covariance tests.

Results: Compared to cisgender, sexually diverse people, non-binary people were less likely to report feeling comfortable with a physical exam, having good mental health, respected by providers, that providers had adequate medical information, that providers could care for someone going through gender affirmation, and that hospital staff were comfortable interacting with them. Additionally, non-binary people were more likely to report hospital staff misgendering them.

Discussion: These unique LGBTQ+ subgroup differences may be secondary to identity-specific stigma that non-binary people face. More international studies are needed to elucidate these subgroup-specific healthcare experiences across LGBTQ+ identities.

Despite improvements in the awareness and acceptance of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and other sexual and gender diverse (LGBTQ+) individuals, the LGBTQ+ community continues to experience discrimination, which can result in adverse health outcomes. In particular, LGBTQ+ youth have an increased risk of experiencing depression, substance abuse, and suicide. Societal stigma and rejection, bullying, and familial disapproval all contribute to these health disparities. In recognition of these inequities, an interprofessional team of biomedical faculty members, staff, and trainees from the Louisiana State University Health Science Center (LSUHSC) in New Orleans developed the needs-assessment evaluation, the Gender and Sexual Minority Youth Outreach Survey (GSMYO) for high school students. Health science centers have access to resources and experienced personnel who can provide support and education to high school students, teachers, and administrative staff. However, it is important to first determine the high schools' specific needs, attitudes towards LGBTQ+ acceptance, and their current resources. Faculty, staff, and trainees from the LSUHSC Science Youth Initiative (SYI) and the LSUHSC LGBTQ+ Organization, Tiger Pride, administered the short, anonymous survey to adolescents attending Southeast Louisiana high schools. English Language Learner (ELL) students received the survey in Spanish. Results from the GSMYO needs-assessment survey are presented. Other health science centers may adapt the presented survey to develop needs-based LGBTQ+ high school programs to address the educational and health inequities in their own communities, regardless of location or demographic region.

In this article, the authors, a cis-gender gay man and an Indigenous non-binary, two-spirit person, narrate their past encounters with health professionals and their experiences pursuing allied health care training as students. Taking an autoethnographic approach, the first author re-narrates how medical practitioners and students engage (or fail to engage) with the LGBTQIA+ community. They draw on gray documentation derived from an interaction with a consulting physician that highlighted a telling lack of knowledge about the LGBTQ+ community, including those with diverse sex characteristics and sexualities/manifesting as unconscious bias. This interaction provided the impetus to speak back to the experience of being reduced to a medical prognosis. The second author questions the hegemonic practices underpinning encounters with the medical model of response in tertiary education. Our remit in this paper is to question how adequately the specific needs of the LGBTQI+ population are being addressed by the medical model and to what extent aspiring clinicians understand how their actions can contribute to gender- and sexuality-based discrimination and stigmatization.

The study examines the interaction between social capital, education, and subjective well-being in Ecuador, highlighting its impact on economic development. The study aims to understand the situation of social capital and subjective well-being and how the identified factors explain the impact on subjective well-being in the Ecuadorian population, using a descriptive and analytical approach with information from the World Value Survey database of waves 6 and 7. The main results show a significant relationship between social capital and subjective well-being, with positive influences such as justice and union membership, and negative effects of public administration and media. In conclusion, the importance of strengthening social capital and improving public services and communication to promote the well-being of the Ecuadorian population is emphasized.

Representative opinion polls indicate that members of the U.S. public may hold dichotomous perceptions of their veterans. While the majority of the U.S. public appreciates and honors their veterans, they are also considered to suffer from war-induced trauma and physical disabilities. Victimizing attitudes toward the veteran population may result in stigmatization and a more difficult transition into civilian society. This may be particularly problematic for U.S. veterans who were deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan as this younger veteran population needs to reintegrate not only into civilian society but also into civilian workplace settings. The present study aims to uncover and unravel underlying rationalities that justify heroizing and victimizing sentiments in relation to Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. In order to delve beyond socially desirable reporting and cultural norms, in-depth semi-structured interviews with 29 individuals (20 non-veterans and 9 veterans) were conducted. Three themes were identified by thematic analysis: Theme 1 "Individual Understandings of the Deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan" represents an underlying framework that tainted perceptions of Theme 2 "Conceptualizations of war, deployment, and violence" and Theme 3 "Evaluations of the veteran's personality." If the deployments were considered justified, then veterans were heroized, characterized with supreme altruistic traits when compared with civilians. Negative effects on health that were arbitrarily related to deployment experience were classified as short-lived. If the deployments were scrutinized, then veterans were considered as naïve victims of a deceitful government, suffering from long-term health problems. Importantly, as discussions surrounding the legitimacy of the deployments were context-dependent, the participants were able to hold perceptions of veterans as victims and as heroes side by side. In conclusion, the heroization and victimization of veterans may be the result of considering different viewpoints, elucidating diversity and access to equivocal information in an increasingly complex social world. Although the present findings may require further validation, they suggest that changing negative, stereotyping perceptions of veterans may require a coherent rationale for deployments and uniform mission objectives.

Introduction: Gender-transformative approaches (GTAs) have been successfully carried out to address harmful gender norms and power imbalances to promote more gender equitability. However, to improve the health and wellbeing of young people, it is necessary to involve household heads by positively transforming their beliefs on gender equity and norms.

Methods: This study was cross-sectional quantitative research undertaken in six local government areas in Ebonyi State, Nigeria. The study population consisted of household heads in households with young people aged 15-24 years. Data were collected for 15 days using paper and electronic copies of the questionnaire. Descriptive, bivariate, and logistic regression analyses were performed using Stata.

Results: The results showed that 46.32% of male and 62.81% of female heads of households disagreed with the statement "a good woman never questions her husband's opinions, even if she is not sure she agrees with them." Female heads of households aged 50 years and below with an odds ratio of 0.47 (p-value = 0.02) suggest they were 0.47 times more likely to have a positive attitude toward the rights and privileges of young girls. Male heads of households aged 50 years and below with an odds ratio of 1.05 (p-value = 0.84) suggest that they were 1.05 times more likely to have a positive attitude toward the rights and privileges of young girls.

Conclusion: This paper provides new knowledge on the gender norm attitude of male and female heads of households on the rights, privileges, and equity promotion of young boys and young girls, as well as its associated factors.