Photo taken by Zackary Drucker. Photo courtesy of The Gender Spectrum Collection.
Beyond LGBT: Diversifying Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Response Options in Youth Surveillance Surveys
When large surveys of youth ask about sexual orientation or gender identity, they frequently provide a small number of “traditional” identities: gay/lesbian, bisexuals, transgender, leaving many youth unable to truthfully answer these questions and limiting understanding of health disparities. Recognizing that LGBTQ+ youth are diverse themselves, the Minnesota Student Survey updated their sexual and gender identity questions and response options to better meet the needs and identities of today’s youth. Now, a forthcoming paper by HYD-PRC researcher Dr. Amy Gower and UMN colleagues, Drs. Nic Rider from the Program in Human Sexuality, Camille Brown and Marla Eisenberg from the Division of General Pediatrics and Adolescent Health aiming to explore these diverse identities to test question wording for both state and national surveys and to inform more effective prevention programs.
Working with data from the 2019 Minnesota Student Survey (MSS), an anonymous survey administered every 3 years to 8th, 9th, and 11th graders in Minnesota public and charter schools, Gower and colleagues set out to explore sexual orientation and gender identity among students. 9th and 11th graders who responded to the 2019 MSS survey were provided with this list of options when asked to identify their sexual orientation – heterosexual, bisexual, pansexual, gay or lesbian, queer, not sure of their sexual orientation, that they do not describe themselves in any of the ways listed, or that they did not understand the question. For gender identity, 8th, 9th, and 11th graders were first asked if they were transgender, genderqueer, or gender fluid; response options were: yes, no, I am not sure of my gender identity, and I am not sure what this question means. For those that responded yes, a follow up question allowed youth to indicate more specific identities (e.g., transman/transmasculine, nonbinary). This may seem like a lot of options, but Gower points out young people are using a wide range of terms to describe their sexual and gender identities, and the current response options are somewhat limiting.
“Many surveys and programs lump lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) people together as if they are all the same,” noted Gower. “But in reality, each of these identities is different from one another and each group has varying health needs and risk and protective factors.”
“Many surveys and programs lump lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) people together as if they are all the same,” noted Gower. “But in reality, each of these identities is different from one another and each group has varying health needs and risk and protective factors.” Providing a more comprehensive, representative list of options for survey respondents will afford students the opportunity to select the option that best represents them. This information is also important for researchers as it will help better inform schools, state agencies, and program developers about resources needed to support these students.
“This study is one of the first to report on statewide youth surveillance data that includes more contemporary response options for sexual and gender identity,” said Gower. Results indicate these identities are relatively common and important to capture among LGBTQ+ youth, but have also pointed out that there are several additional identities that aren’t being offered as option and need to be. “These findings provide strong support for the inclusion of a broader set of sexual and gender identity responses,” said Gower. Accurate measurement of sexual orientation and gender identity among adolescents is critical to identifying strengths and opportunities for prevention and health promotion among LGBTQ+ youth.