PurposeIntimate partner violence (IPV) is becoming more recognized as a public health concern among sexual minority men, including bisexual and gay men. Guided by the Minority Stress Model, we assessed the relationship between perceived discrimination and three forms of IPV among a sample of bisexual and gay men living in the United States.MethodsWe analyzed data as part of the Men’s Body Project, a cross-sectional study launched in 2020 to assess health behaviors of bisexual and gay men.ResultsA total of 549 individuals participated in the survey, of which 52% were gay and 48% were bisexual men. Perceived discrimination was significantly associated with elevated odds ratios ranging from 1.15 to 1.18 across three forms of IPV, with Physical IPV odds ratio being highest.ConclusionGiven the significant association between perceived discrimination and IPV, interventions aimed at addressing IPV experiences among sexual minority men must consider the role of minority stress.

Context

Every year, along with the State-Sponsored Homophobia report, ILGA World publishes also maps of sexual orientation laws in the world.

https://ilga.org/maps-sexual-orientation-laws

Content

A useful tool for LGB human rights defenders, these images expose the arbitrariness of persecutory laws, and starkly indicate the absence of positive law in most parts of the world.

https://ilga.org/maps-sexual-orientation-laws

Acknowledgements

https://ilga.org/maps-sexual-orientation-laws

Photo by Sharon McCutcheon on Unsplash

Inspiration

LGBTQIA community.

"The negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT). The prejudice, aversion, hatred or antipathy, may be based on irrational fear and ignorance, and is often related to religious beliefs against LGBTQIA community." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia

Context

FRA (Fundamental Rights Agency) conducted an online survey to identify how lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people living in the European Union and Croatia experience the fulfilment of their fundamental rights. The evidence produced by the survey will support the development of more effective laws and policies to fight discrimination, violence and harassment, improving equal treatment across society. The need for such an EU-wide survey became evident after the publication in 2009 of the first FRA report on homophobia and discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity, which highlighted the absence of comparable data. The European Commission then requested FRA to collect comparable data across the EU on this issue. FRA organised the data collection in the form of an online survey covering all EU Member States and Croatia. The respondents were persons aged 18 years and over, who identify themselves as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender, anonymously. The survey was made available online, from April to July 2012, in all 23 official EU languages (except Irish) plus Catalan, Croatian, Luxembourgish, Russian and Turkish. In total, 93,079 LGBT persons completed the survey. FRA’s inhouse experts designed the survey which was implemented by Gallup, one of the market leaders in large-scale surveys. In addition, civil society organisations including ILGA-Europe (European Region of the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association) and Transgender Europe (TGEU) provided advice on how to best approach LGBT people.

More about methodology of the survey can be found in EU LGBT survey Technical report. Methodology, online survey, questionnaire and sample.

Content

Data set consist of 5 .csv files that represent 5 blocks of questions: Daily Life, Discrimination, Violence and Harassment, Rights Awareness, Transgender Specific Questions.

The schema of all the tables is identical:

• CountryCode - name of the country
• subset - Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual women, Bisexual men or Transgender (for Transgender Specific Questions table the value is only Transgender)
• question_code - unique code ID for the question
• question_label - full question text
• answer - answer given
• percentage
• notes - [0]: small sample size; [1]: NA due to small sample size; [2]: missing value

Acknowledgements

Main results performed by FRA

Inspiration

Various of questions can be asked: do LGBT people feel safe in countries they live in? Do LGBT people where to go if someone discriminate their rights? Is there work/in-house harassment in against LGBT people?

Banner photo by Sharon McCutcheon from Pexels

This table lists proposed anti-LGBTQ+/anti-gender US state-level Bills submitted at House/Senate/Assembly levels from 2018 to 2025 including pre-filed for 2026. It lists the year across the horizontal axis of the table. Vertically it lists the form of bill according to Jones' analyses, it lists the states by abbreviations most commonly used in the US. It then lists the bill no. and uses HB or HF to indicate House Bills or Files, SB or SF to indicate Senate Bills or Files, AB or AF to indicate Assembly Bills or Files. It finally lists the status of the bill (e.g. passed, dead, referred to committee or similar as at 2025 or as pre-filed for 2026).

The European Values Study is a large-scale, cross-national and longitudinal survey research program on how Europeans think about family, work, religion, politics, and society. Repeated every nine years in an increasing number of countries, the survey provides insights into the ideas, beliefs, preferences, attitudes, values, and opinions of citizens all over Europe.

As previous waves conducted in 1981, 1990, 1999, 2008, the fifth EVS wave maintains a persistent focus on a broad range of values. Questions are highly comparable across waves and regions, making EVS suitable for research aimed at studying trends over time.

The new wave has seen a strengthening of the methodological standards. The full release of the EVS 2017 includes data and documentation of altogether 37 participating countries. For more information, please go to the EVS website.

Morale, religious, societal, political, work, and family values of Europeans.

Topics: 1. Perceptions of life: importance of work, family, friends and acquaintances, leisure time, politics and religion; happiness; self-assessment of own health; memberships in voluntary organisations (religious or church organisations, cultural activities, trade unions, political parties or groups, environment, ecology, animal rights, professional associations, sports, recreation, or other groups, none); active or inactive membership of humanitarian or charitable organisation, consumer organisation, self-help group or mutual aid; voluntary work in the last six months; tolerance towards minorities (people of a different race, heavy drinkers, immigrants, foreign workers, drug addicts, homosexuals, Christians, Muslims, Jews, and gypsies - social distance); trust in people; estimation of people´s fair and helpful behavior; internal or external control; satisfaction with life; importance of educational goals: desirable qualities of children.

1. Work: attitude towards work (job needed to develop talents, receiving money without working is humiliating, people turn lazy not working, work is a duty towards society, work always comes first); importance of selected aspects of occupational work; give priority to nationals over foreigners as well as men over women in jobs.

2. Religion and morale: religious denomination; current and former religious denomination; current frequency of church attendance and at the age of 12; self-assessment of religiousness; belief in God, life after death, hell, heaven, and re-incarnation; personal god vs. spirit or life force; importance of God in one´s life (10-point-scale); frequency of prayers; morale attitudes (scale: claiming state benefits without entitlement, cheating on taxes, taking soft drugs, accepting a bribe, homosexuality, abortion, divorce, euthanasia, suicide, paying cash to avoid taxes, casual sex, avoiding fare on public transport, prostitution, in-vitro fertilization, political violence, death penalty).

3. Family: trust in family; most important criteria for a successful marriage or partnership (faithfulness, adequate income, good housing, sharing household chores, children, time for friends and personal hobbies); marriage is an outdated institution; attitude towards traditional understanding of one´s role of man and woman in occupation and family (gender roles); homosexual couples are as good parents as other couples; duty towards society to have children; responsibility of adult children for their parents when they are in need of long-term care; to make own parents proud is a main goal in life.

4. Politics and society: political interest; political participation; preference for individual freedom or social equality; self-assessment on a left-right continuum (10-point-scale) (left-right self-placement); individual vs. state responsibility for providing; take any job vs. right to refuse job when unemployed; competition good vs. harmful for people; equal incomes vs. incentives for individual effort; private vs. government ownership of business and industry; postmaterialism (scale); most important aims of the country for the next ten years; willingness to fight for the country; expectation of future development (less importance placed on work and greater respect for authority); trust in institutions; essential characteristics of democracy; importance of democracy for the respondent; rating democracy in own country; satisfaction with the political system in the country; preferred type of political system (strong leader, expert decisions, army should ...

Data Description: In this dataset, 13 self-identified LGBTQ+ people are interviewed as to explore how diversity shapes LGBTQ+ perspectives of the police. The data is collected through qualitative methods with semi-structured interviews conducted with self-identified LGBTQ+ people in Rotterdam. Participants were gathered through targeted sampling mixed, then with snowball sampling. Specific participants were gathered at LGBTQ+ community events in Rotterdam. Participants ranged from 18-34 years old. The interviews were conducted in english. As a consequence, only english speaking people could be interviewed. The interviews are first audio recorded followed by a transcribed written down version of transcripts. Ensuring anonymity and participant well-being was of the utmost importance, to this end the interviews are anonymised and any relevant details are removed. Range groups are introduced to further anonymise the participants. The results demonstrate that perceptions around the police are more negative, and less homogenous than quantitative surveys indicate - even in a country where tolerance of sexual minorities is relatively high. Transcripts are analysed with the help of Atlas.ti (Used codes included), using a grounded theory approach.The following study is approved by the Erasmus University DPAS Ethics Committee with the approval of both the Data Steward and the Privacy Officer.Paper Abstract : Going beyond simplistic overgeneralization, this study analyses how diversity within the LGBTQ+ community is associated with differential perspectives on, and trust in, the police in Rotterdam. It utilizes queer theory concepts like heteronormativity and homonationalism to achieve a more complex and accurate understanding of LGBTQ+ perceptions and experiences, and employs procedural justice theory to understand how these perceptions and experiences result in (dis)trust in the police. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 13 participants in Rotterdam. The results demonstrate that perceptions around the police are more negative, and less homogenous than quantitative surveys indicate - even in a country where tolerance of sexual minorities is relatively high. Differential acceptance of diversity in queerness under the LGBTQ+ umbrella seems to be crucial in shaping LGBTQ+ perceptions of the police, with visibly queer individuals being less accepted, and often holding more negative perceptions of the police. Future research should thus expand on how the various sub-groups within the LGBTQ+ spectrum perceive the police, and how trust can be improved, for example by strengthening the visibility of the PinkinBlue unit within the police.

While we know LGBTQ tobacco use disparities exist, trends in these disparities are, for the most part, unknown. This scoping review sought to answer the research questions: Are disparities getting better, staying the same, or getting worse over time?

We obtained a sample of 455 participants (i.e., 227 couples and 1 individual) who relocated to a different city, state/province, or country, with one partner who initiated the couple’s move (i.e., relocaters, who typically moved for career opportunities), and the other partner who accommodated their partner’s initiation to move (i.e., trailers). Couples moved an average of 2,702 kilometers (range: 18km to 15,535km), with some moving to a different city (23.6%), most moving to a different province/state (46%), and others moving internationally (29.8%). Participants filled out a baseline survey ~2 months before couples moved, 5 shorter bi-weekly surveys in the wake of the move, and follow-up surveys at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-move. Attrition was relatively low but increased over time (Ns: 1st bi-weekly = 423, 2nd bi-weekly = 406, 3rd bi-weekly = 400, 4th bi-weekly = 395, 5th bi-weekly = 384, 3mo follow-up = 365, 6mo follow-up = 347, 9mo follow-up = 326, 12mo follow-up = 288). Some attrition is due to couples that broke up over the course of the study (N = 38, 8.3%). Participants were recruited via a wide variety of ways, such as through moving service companies, relocation offices of large companies, universities, and hospitals, and various online networking sites (e.g., kijiji, Craigslist, Reddit, Facebook groups). Couples were eligible when both partners spoke English, were over the age of 18, were in a romantic relationship, currently lived together, and importantly, when they were going to relocate with their partner in at least two months, which was primarily for one of the partners (e.g., to support their career opportunities). Interested couples were enrolled after they had a phone call with a research team member to confirm their eligibility and explain the study procedure. Each participant received $10 CAD for the baseline survey, $7 CAD for each bi-weekly survey (5 bi-weekly surveys X $7 CAD = $35 CAD), and $15 CAD for each follow-up survey (4 follow-up surveys X $15 CAD = $60 CAD). Participants also received a bonus of $15 CAD if they completed all of the study surveys or all but one of the study surveys. In total, participants could receive up to $120 CAD ($240 CAD per couple), or the equivalent in another currency. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 54 (M = 29.8, SD = 5.8), 51% identified as women, 46.6% as men, 2% as non-binary, 0.2% as transgender, and 0.2% as agender. The majority identified as heterosexual (80%), with others identifying as bisexual (7.9%), lesbian (3.3%), queer (2.2%), asexual (2.2%), gay (1.8%), pansexual (1.8%), or “other” (e.g., androsexual; 0.9%). Most participants identified as White (North American/European, 62.9%) and others identified as East Asian (8.8%), South Asian (8.1%), Black (7.5%), Latin American (4.2%), bi- or multi-ethnic (e.g., White/Black, 4.6%), Native American/First Nations (0.7%), or “other” (e.g., Middle Eastern, South-East Asian, 3.3%). All participants were living together with their partner and were in their current relationship for 6.26 (SD = 4.98) years on average. Most participants were married (47.5%) or engaged (9.2%), while others indicated they were dating (27.5%), common-law (14.3%), or “other” (e.g., domestic partnership, 1.5%). About a quarter of the participants had children (23.1%), with most of these having one (13.4%) or two (8.4%) children. This project was approved by the University of Toronto research ethics board on December 14, 2018 (#00036971).

Attribute Description NY 2010-2019

County: Location where the crime was reported.

Year: Year the crime incident was reported.

Crime Type: Category of crime defined by the FBI, including Crimes Against Persons (crimes targeting individuals or groups of individuals), and Property Crimes.

Anti-Male: Count of incidents with a reported Anti-Male bias. Male: An individual that produces small usually motile gametes (as spermatozoa or spermatozoids) which fertilize the egg of a female. (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)

Anti-Female: Count of incidents with a reported Anti-Female bias. Female: An individual of the sex that bears young or produces eggs. (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)

Anti-Transgender: Count of incidents with a reported Anti-Transgender bias. Transgender: Of or relating to a person who identifies as a different gender from their gender as determined at birth. The person may also identify himself or herself as “transsexual.” A transgender person may outwardly express his or her gender identity all of the time, part of the time, or none of the time; a transgender person may decide to change his or her body to medically conform to his or her gender identity.

Anti-Gender: Identity Expression Count of incidents with a reported Anti-Gender Identity Expression bias. Gender Nonconforming: Describes a person who does not conform to the gender-based expectations of society, e.g., a woman dressed in traditionally male clothing or a man wearing makeup. Note: A gender nonconforming person may or may not be a lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender person but may be perceived as such.

Anti-Age*: Count of incidents with a reported Anti-Age bias (60 years old or more). Age (60 years old or more): A preformed negative opinion or attitude toward a person or group of persons based on their actual or perceived age of 60 years old or more. The two bias types included under New York State’s Hate Crime Law (Penal Law Article 485) that are not included in the list of federally-defined bias types are noted with an asterisk(*).

Anti-White: Count of incidents with a reported Anti-White bias. White: A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa. This category includes persons from the following nationalities: Irish, German, Italian, Lebanese, Arab, Moroccan, or Caucasian. (Census)

Anti-Black: Count of incidents with a reported Anti-Black of African American bias. Black or African American: A person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa. This category includes persons from the following nationalities or groups: African American, Kenyan, Nigerian, or Haitian. (Census)

Anti-American Indian/Alaskan Native: Count of incidents with a reported Anti-American Indian or Alaskan Native bias. American Indian or Alaska Native: A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America) and who maintains tribal affiliation or community attachment. This category includes persons from the following tribal affiliations: Navajo, Blackfeet, Inupiat, Yup’ik, or Central American Indian groups or South American Indian groups. (Census)

Anti-Asian: Count of incidents with a reported Anti-Asian bias. Asian: A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam. This category includes persons from the following nationalities: Asian Indian, Bangledeshi, Bhutanese, Bermese, Cambodian, Chinese Filipino, Hmong, Indonesian, Japanese, Korean, Laotian, Malaysian, Nepalese, Pakistani, Sri Lankan, Taiwanese, Thai, Vietnamese, Other Asian, specified; Other Asian, not specified. (Census)

Anti-Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander: Count of incidents with a reported Anti-Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander bias. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander: A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands. This category includes persons from the following nationalities: Fijian, Guamanian or Chamorro, Marshallese, Native Hawaiian, Other Micronesian, Other Pacific Islander, not specified; Other Polynesian, Samoan, Tongan. (Census)

Anti-Multi-Racial Groups: Count of incidents with a reported Anti-Multi-Racial Groups bias. Multiple Races, Group: A group of persons having origins from multiple racial categories.

Anti-Other Race: Count of incidents with a reported Anti-Other Race bias. Other Race/Ethnicity/Ancestry: A person of a different race/ethnicity/ancestry than is otherwise included in this combined category.

Anti-Jewish: Count of incident...