Minority individuals might conceal their identity in social contexts in an effort to avoid stigma and victimization. Unfortunately, identity concealment is thought to impact psychological distress in transgender and gender nonconforming (TGNC) individuals. Thus, through 30 in-depth interviews, we sought to understand if and how identity concealment was experienced by TGNC individuals. Findings indicated that (a) TGNC identity concealment is a source of stress, (b) individuals might conceal their TGNC identity based on social context, (c) concealment of assigned sex and gender history can function to affirm one's true gender identity, and (d) concealment of gender history is a rejection of one's assigned sex. In addition, (a) passing/blending is an important interpersonal and intrapersonal process, (b) the importance of passing/blending can change over time, and (c) not passing/blending may result in worrying about personal safety. The authors discuss how concealment can both inhibit and promote psychological health for TGNC individuals, and they offer clinical applications for health providers. (PsycINFO Database Record

Objectives We examined types of discrimination encountered by transgender and gender diverse (TGD) individuals and the associations with symptoms of depression and anxiety, as well as the mediating and moderating effects of coping responses. Method This online study included 695 TGD individuals ages 16 years and over (M = 25.52; standard deviation = 9.68). Results Most participants (76.1%) reported discrimination over the past year. Greater exposure to discrimination was associated with more symptoms of depression and anxiety. These associations were mediated by coping via detachment and via internalization, although a direct effect remained. Conclusions Many TGD people will encounter discrimination and this is associated with greater psychological distress. Engagement in the internalization of blame or detachment partially explains the association between discrimination and mental health issues. These findings elucidate possible avenues for interventions to bolster adaptive coping responses for TGD people and highlight that actions to decrease discrimination are urgently needed.

The challenges observed in health-service-psychology (HSP) training during COVID-19 revealed systemic and philosophical issues that preexisted the pandemic but became more visible during the global health crisis. In a position article written by 23 trainees across different sites and training specializations, we use lessons learned from COVID-19 as a touchstone for a call to action in HSP training. Historically, trainee voices have been conspicuously absent from literature about clinical training. We describe long-standing dilemmas in HSP training that were exacerbated by the pandemic and will continue to require resolution after the pandemic has subsided. We make recommendations for systems-level changes that would advance equity and sustainability in HSP training. This article advances the conversation about HSP training by including the perspective of trainees as essential stakeholders.

Informed by structural stigma theory, this article presents the results of two studies that explored mental health experiences of transgender, nonbinary, and gender-diverse (TNG) individuals and cisgender lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer (LGBQ) individuals (N = 523) prior to and following a state referendum to remove gender-based protections. In the Preelection Study, a path model explored relationships among individual factors (i.e., TNG identity, history of gender-based victimization), interpersonal variables (i.e., Referendum familiarity, exposure to Referendum-related messages, sexual orientation, and gender identity-specific social support), and mental health factors (i.e., Referendum-related anxiety and depressive symptomatology). Referendum-related anxiety mediated the relationships between TNG identity, gender-based victimization, sexual orientation and gender identity social support, and depressive symptomatology, explaining 40% of the variance in depressive symptomatology. Postelection, a subsample of participants (N = 117) was used to test a model of differences from pre-to postelection. Neither TNG identity nor victimization predicted Postelection mental health, however, Referendum-related anxiety and depressive symptomatology were significantly lower following the ballot vote that retained gender-based rights. Clinical implications suggest sexual and gender minorities may report increased anxiety in the face of anti-lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) legislation, which may be associated with heightened symptoms of depression. TNG people and LGBTQ people with histories of genderbased victimization may be more at risk for mental health concerns related to anti-TNG legislation. Public Significance StatementThis study suggests that public debate over and legislative attempts to restrict protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people present an ongoing threat to mental health for LGBTQ people, and particularly for transgender, nonbinary, and gender diverse (TNG) individuals. Even when legislative outcomes are favorable, LGBTQ people may suffer anxiety and depression, especially those who identify as TNG or who have histories of gender-based victimization.

Given the challenges to the notion of objectivity posed by social psychological research on investigator effects, constructivist and critical epistemological perspectives, and the introduction of qualitative research methods in psychology, the investigators examined how leading methodologists understand the function of objectivity and subjectivity in psychological science. The aim of the study was to learn how contemporary methodologists view these issues so as to communicate converging perspectives to the field and inform methods education. A brief historical review of the concept of objectivity in psychology is presented to contexualize this examination. Eleven accomplished methodologists with expertise in a range of methods and epistemological perspectives were interviewed. Findings from a grounded theory analysis demonstrated that all the participants expressed concern about the belief that science is unaffected by scientists' perspectives, believing researchers and educators should problematize this perspective. Recommendations from participants included that science be viewed as a value-laden endeavor in which scientists systematically conduct research from multiple epistemological perspectives, and/or utilize diverse methods tailored to address their questions. Scientific procedures were detailed that could curtail dangers of either unchecked subjectivity or a false sense of objectivity. A functional analysis of these constructs, objectivity and subjectivity, suggested they both serve a similar scientific and an ethical purpose-to prevent the premature foreclosure of possible understanding because of the expectations of researchers. The mainstreaming of disclosures about the perspectives and positions of investigators, as well as their management, and the implementation of epistemological and methodological pluralism are encouraged to support this ethic.