Search results

Purpose: Being the victim of sexual violence can lead to long-term health consequences. In response, rape crisis centers provide support to survivors of sexual violence including medical and mental health treatment or referrals to treatment. A history of exclusion and provision of service by cisgenderist binary categories limit the ability of rape crisis centers to serve transgender survivors of sexual violence. Can gender be a way to provide safe, inclusive healthcare or is it necessarily a way to enact gender oppression? How can rape crisis centers and other healthcare organizations become more inclusive of transgender people?

Methods: In addition to fieldwork at a rape crisis center that had a trans inclusion project, interviews were conducted with staff and volunteers at the rape crisis center.

Findings: I found that gender-based service provision is problematic, especially when based on an understanding of gender conflated with sex category. Even organizations aiming to challenge gender oppression can reproduce it.

Practical Implications: Options for health organizations to become more trans inclusive are presented.

Originality: Research on the transgender experience, particularly at rape crisis centers and other healthcare organizations that provide gender-segregated service, is limited That literature often presents those organizing women-only space as monolithic and struggles around the inclusion of trans people oversimplified. My research illuminates how gender inequality is reproduced in an organization aimed at challenging that inequality. My research shows the logics of those engaged within an organization reproducing oppression despite individuals' desires to challenge oppression.

Purpose: The goal of Volume 21 of Advances in Medical Sociology, entitled Sexual and Gender Minority Health, is to showcase recent developments and areas for future research related to the health, well-being, and healthcare experiences of LGBTQA+ (Lesbian, Gay, Transgender, Queer, Asexual, and related communities that do not identify as heterosexual) persons and communities.

Approach: In this introduction to the volume, we trace the historical development of research on sexual and gender minority (SGM) health, discussing how priorities, theories, and evidence have evolved over time. We conclude with brief suggestions for future research and an overview of the articles presented in this volume.

Findings: Research on SGM health has flourished in the past two decades. This trend has occurred in conjunction with a period of intense social, political, and legal discourse about the civil rights of SGM persons, which has increased understanding and recognition of SGM experiences. However, recent advances have often been met with resistance and backlash rooted in enduring social stigma and long histories of discrimination and prejudice that reinforce and maintain health disparities faced by SGM populations.

Value: Our review highlights the need for additional research to understand minority stress processes, risk factors, and resiliency, particularly for those at the intersection of SGM and racial/ethnic or socioeconomic marginality.

This chapter identifies the challenges that faculty with children experience as they engage in international research. We explore how these faculty members manage the competing demands of international research work and parenthood.

Data includes qualitative interviews with 42 faculty members who are parents, in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields from 23 Research 1 universities.

The globalizing nature of research poses insufficiently recognized tensions between international travel and caregiving. Faculty reported three main strategies that enable them to manage work-family conflicts when work takes them abroad. These include: (1) opting out of international research; (2) modifying international travel; and (3) merging international research with caregiving.

Work-family conflicts identified at the national level are amplified for international research.

Interview data are self-reports of what faculty members recalled and elected to share; actual behaviors may differ somewhat.

This chapter provides insights that academic institutions might use to support faculty engaged in international research.

A failure to understand and support the unique needs of parents in international research settings may compromise active parenthood for faculty, while reinscribing and reinforcing existing gendered disparities in academia. The internationalization of STEM fields, when coupled with a lack of institutional support for parents, presents a mechanism that contributes to the ongoing underrepresentation of women in science and engineering.

Although similar questions have been considered in national contexts, little research has explored work-family conflicts for parents in an international setting.