Wilson Bianca D M, Lin Andy, Bouton Lauren J A
Department of Social Welfare, UCLA, Los Angeles, California.
Office of Advanced Research Computing, UCLA, Los Angeles, California.
Womens Health Issues. 2025 Jan-Feb;35(1):28-38. doi: 10.1016/j.whi.2024.10.004. Epub 2024 Dec 4.
Research has demonstrated that sexual minority populations are more likely to experience poverty than sexual majority populations and that many of these disparities are driven by specific sexual minority subgroups, including cisgender bisexual women. Yet, little is known about the factors associated with economic insecurity that explain the intragroup differences in economic outcomes among sexual minorities, particularly among those of the same gender (i.e., cisgender bisexual vs. lesbian women).
We used a U.S. national probability sample of non-transgender sexual minority adults to assess the relationship between poverty and demographic (age, race/ethnicity, education), psychological (psychological distress, self-acceptance, felt stigma, and experienced discrimination), and social (outness, partnership and parental status, partner gender, and gender expression) characteristics for each subgroup of women, lesbian/gay (n = 324) and bisexual (n = 355). We calculated odds ratios and adjusted odds ratios (AORs) estimated from logistic regression models that relate risk factors to poverty.
Race/ethnicity (i.e., identifying as Black) and education (i.e., having a high school diploma or less) were associated with living in poverty for both groups. The role of minority stressors, such as outness, everyday discrimination, and internalized homophobia did not strongly predict poverty for either group. However, reports of experienced stigma related to one's sexual orientation and masculine gender expression were associated with poverty among lesbians but not for bisexual women, and having children was a strong predictor of poverty for bisexual women but not lesbians.
These findings suggest that policy, advocacy, and service interventions should consider tailoring approaches to address poverty for bisexual and lesbian women differently.
研究表明,性少数群体比性多数群体更易陷入贫困,且许多此类差异是由特定的性少数亚群体导致的,包括顺性别双性恋女性。然而,对于与经济不安全相关的因素,即那些解释性少数群体内部经济结果差异的因素,尤其是同性别的性少数群体(即顺性别双性恋女性与女同性恋者)之间的差异,我们知之甚少。
我们使用了一个美国非跨性别性少数成年人群体的全国概率样本,以评估贫困与人口统计学特征(年龄、种族/族裔、教育程度)、心理特征(心理困扰、自我接纳、感知到的污名和经历的歧视)以及社会特征(出柜程度、伴侣和父母身份、伴侣性别以及性别表达)之间的关系,这些特征针对女同性恋/男同性恋(n = 324)和双性恋(n = 355)这两个女性亚群体。我们计算了比值比和经调整的比值比(AOR),这些比值比是通过将风险因素与贫困相关联的逻辑回归模型估算得出的。
种族/族裔(即认定为黑人)和教育程度(即拥有高中文凭或更低学历)与两组的贫困状况都相关。少数群体压力源,如出柜程度、日常歧视和内化的恐同心理,对两组的贫困状况都没有很强的预测作用。然而,与性取向和男性化性别表达相关的污名经历报告与女同性恋者的贫困状况相关,但与双性恋女性无关,并且有孩子是双性恋女性贫困的一个强预测因素,但对女同性恋者则不然。
这些发现表明,政策、宣传和服务干预应考虑针对双性恋和女同性恋女性制定不同的扶贫方法。