An Intersectional Analysis of Intraminority Stigma Experiences and Community Involvement Among Young, Middle-Aged, and Older Gay Men

Abstract

Participation within gay communities can foster belonging but also intraminority stigma, potentially leading to avoidance, smaller social networks, and worse mental health. Guided by temporal intersectional minority stress theory and intraminority gay community stress theory, this cross-sectional study examined age differences in gay-specific intraminority stigma experiences, community involvement, and their associations among 2,159 gay men aged 19–79 years (M_age=40.49, SD=13.43). Compared to younger gay men, older gay men experienced more age stigma from other gay men, but less stigma related to body size/shape, gender expression, race/ethnicity, and nonconformity to mainstream community norms. However, older gay men with lower socioeconomic status (SES) and higher weight reported more intraminority socioeconomic and body stigma, respectively, relative to their younger counterparts. Intraminority body stigma was negatively associated with community involvement among gay men under 30 and positively associated among gay men over 59. Additionally, older gay men with lower status in gay spaces (i.e., lower masculinity, lower SES, higher weight, non-White, non-Democrat) experienced more intraminority gender expression stigma and less community involvement, but less acutely than their younger counterparts. Longitudinal and intersectional research is needed to better understand the clinical implications of intraminority stigma for the psychosocial well-being of gay men across the lifespan.

Across the lifespan, people with minoritized sexual identities (e.g., gay men) experience higher rates of depression, anxiety, loneliness, and social isolation compared to heterosexual people (Bostwick et al., 2014; Choi & Meyer, 2016; Fredriksen-Goldsen, Hyun-Jun et al., 2013; Masa et al., 2024; Umberson & Donnelly, 2023). Minority stress theory (Brooks, 1981; Frost & Meyer, 2023; Meyer, 2003) posits that gay and other non-heterosexual men’s elevated risk for mental health conditions can be partially explained by chronic exposure to distal (external) and proximal (internal) stressors related to identity-based stigma (e.g., discrimination, internalized stigma, identity concealment), alongside general life stressors. Stigma is broadly defined as the social devaluation and stereotyping of different groups of people based on certain characteristics (e.g., sexual orientation, age) and can result in anticipated and experienced rejection and exclusion (Meyer, 2003; Shepherd & Brochu, 2021; Stangl et al., 2019; Williams et al., 2019). Emerging evidence suggests direct or even indirect exposure to stigma can lead to heightened vigilance and avoidance of contexts that do not feel safe, which can limit social connections and exact a psychological toll (Diamond & Alley, 2022; Foster-Gimbel & Engeln, 2016; Hollinsaid et al., 2023; Wetzel et al., 2026). However, researchers often examine stigmatized groups independently of one another and fail to account for how people with multiple stigmatized identities (e.g., older gay men) may experience stigma, stress, and avoidance within their respective identity groups (Dellers et al., 2024; Green, 2008; Pachankis et al., 2020; Shepherd, Denning, et al., 2023, 2024). In addition to intersectionality (i.e., unique experiences born from overlapping and interlocking systems of oppression or societal hegemonies; Crenshaw, 1989, 1991), cohort effects based on the socio-historical, political, and structural contexts in which identity development and interpersonal relationships occur should be considered when assessing the psychosocial health of gay men across the age spectrum (Hammack et al., 2018; Rivas-Koehl et al., 2023). To inform intervention and prevention efforts for gay men of all ages, the current cross-sectional study quantitatively explored how age is associated with gay men’s experiences of stigma and involvement within gay communities, as well as how experiences of intraminority stigma are associated with community involvement among gay men of varying age cohorts.

Intersectional Minority Stress

A growing body of scholarly work underscores the need to consider the health disparities faced by aging lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) populations (Choi & Meyer, 2016; Fredriksen-Goldsen & Muraco, 2010; Hoy-Ellis et al., 2016; Lelutiu-Weinberger et al., 2013; Rowan et al., 2021); yet, little is still known about how gay men with multiple marginalized identities experience stigma and community involvement across the life course. Temporal intersectional minority stress theory (Rivas-Koehl et al., 2023) posits that the experience and clinical implications of minority stress stem from and vary by perceptions of intersecting identities and historical, generational, and developmental factors (Brooks, 1981; Meyer, 2003), accounting for the influence of multiple, interacting systems of oppression (e.g., heterosexism, racism, classism) and sociopolitical and cultural changes that occur over time on the social, mental, and physical well-being of stigmatized groups, including their capacity for coping and social support (see Figure 1; Rivas-Koehl et al., 2023). Compared to their younger peers, older gay men experience a unique set of contextual and psychosocial circumstances that may contribute to mental health disparities due to their age and life experience (Barrett et al., 2015; Hoy-Ellis, 2016; Kushner et al., 2013; Lyons et al., 2014). Older gay men grew up in less affirming environments where heterosexist prejudice, discrimination, and violence were commonplace, expected, and even encouraged (e.g., criminalization of same-sex sexual activity, medicalization of homosexuality by the DSM, perpetuation of conversion therapy; Choi & Meyer, 2016; Kushner et al., 2013). As a result, older gay men may experience significant levels of internalized homonegativity, engage in sexual orientation concealment, and distance themselves from the gay community (Choi & Meyer, 2016; Fredriksen-Goldsen et al., 2013a; Shepherd et al., 2021) at higher rates than their younger peers due to learned behavioral patterns from earlier in life (Fredriksen-Goldsen, 2011). Despite these challenges, older gay men generally exhibit higher levels of resilience than younger gay men which may buffer against symptoms of depression and post-traumatic stress disorder (Monin et al., 2017).

Figure 1. Temporal Intersectional Minority Stress Model (TIMS; Rivas-Koehl et al., 2023).

Note. This figure was taken from the article titled “The temporal intersectional minority stress model: Reimagining minority stress theory” (Rivas-Koehl et al., 2023). Letters A–I on the model correspond to the original components of Meyer’s (2003) minority stress theory.

In the minority stress literature, community involvement is often conceptualized as a psychosocial buffer against the toll of heterosexism among gay men (Foster-Gimbel et al., 2020; Petruzzella et al., 2019; Salfas et al., 2019; Shepherd et al., 2026). Participation within gay communities can foster supportive social networks, self-esteem, and a psychological sense of belonging that stems from a common culture and shared history of rejection and exclusion (Foster-Gimbel et al., 2020; Frost & Meyer, 2012; Hagerty et al., 1996; Meyer, 2015). However, not all gay men experience the same level of inclusion and belonging as a consequence of exposure to intersectional minority stressors (i.e., the external and internal stress multiply marginalized individuals experience due to the cumulative or synergistic effects of interconnected systems of oppression; Austen et al., 2022; Boggs et al., 2014; Hammack et al., 2022; Lyons et al., 2022; Rivas-Koehl et al., 2023; Shepherd et al., 2025). One source of intersectional minority stress is intraminority stigma—stigma experienced specifically within a community that has been historically marginalized and oppressed (e.g., the gay community; Shepherd, Maki, et al., 2023). For example, gay men as they age—particularly older gay men—may learn to expect, experience, and internalize age-based devaluation from other gay men, potentially leading to a reduction in community involvement and elevated risks for loneliness and depression (Wight et al., 2015, 2016; Wright et al., 2024). A specific type of intersectional minority stress that is particularly relevant to gay men—and a potential byproduct of intraminority stigma experiences—is intraminority gay community stress.

Intraminority Gay Community Stress

Intraminority gay community stress theory (Pachankis et al., 2020) posits that, in addition to stress related to heterosexism (e.g., discrimination, concealment, internalized homonegativity) and general life circumstances, gay men experience a range of status-based, competitive, and discriminatory pressures that gay and bisexual men may perceive and experience within the gay community (e.g., valuing sex over meaningful relationships, overly valuing men who are wealthy, having a culture of competition and jealousy, being racist; Pachankis et al., 2020). These unique, ingroup pressures are argued to stem not only from gay and bisexual men’s reliance on other men to satisfy social and sexual needs in a predominantly heteronormative and heterosexist society but also from various other forms of identity-based stigma born from intersecting societal hegemonies that this study aimed to quantify and contextualize across different age groups. These pressures have been shown to include and intersect with heterosexism, sexism, ageism, classism, racism, sizeism, and other systems of oppression, generating social and sexual status hierarchies that shape community members’ expectations, anxieties, and mental health (e.g., privileging more masculine or “straight-acting” presentations; Barnhart et al., 2026; Green, 2008; Pachankis et al., 2020; Green, 2008; Rezende et al., 2025; Shepherd, Maki, et al, 2023). Possibly as a result of temporal shifts in the sociopolitical climate that both foster and threaten the continued improvement of social and legal environments for LGBT communities (Frost et al., 2022), political affiliation could also be considered a stigma-related attribute that contributes to community norms and divisions. For example, Republican gay men are fewer in number and less likely than their Democratic peers to feel connected to the LGBT community (Meyer & Choi, 2020; Worthen, 2020).

Community connection—including gay-specific sources of “chosen family” (i.e., social networks comprised of non-biological relatives who care and support for one another like a family; Breder & Bockting, 2023)—may be particularly relevant to the mental health of older gay men (Fredriksen-Goldsen, 2011; Frost et al., 2016, 2022; Kim et al., 2024; Shepherd et al., 2021) and other multiply minoritized men who would otherwise face difficulties accessing social support sources elsewhere (Petruzzella et al., 2019; Shepherd, Parra, et al., 2026). In fact, one study showed that gay men aged 50 and older were less likely to report psychological distress if they 1) had a sense of belonging, 2) were receiving social support, or 3) if they had more close friends and received support from family and gay friends; support specifically from heterosexual friends was not associated with reduced psychological distress (Lyons, 2016). Relatedly, another study showed greater psychological distress and lower resilience among gay men aged 60 years and older who had more sexuality-related concerns (i.e., worries about being accepted as a gay man by others), but only when they also had more frequent experiences of ageism (Lyons et al., 2022). However, quantitative research rarely examines ageism and other forms of stigma experienced specifically within the gay community, creating a knowledge gap regarding their operationalization and relevance (Shepherd, Maki, et al., 2023). As such, further research on intragroup processes that negatively impact gay men’s capacity to cope with stress, livelihoods, and relationships with other gay men—particularly those with intersecting stigmatized identities (e.g., older gay men)—is warranted (Barrett et al., 2015; Dellers et al., 2024; Shepherd, Maki, et al., 2023; Shepherd, Tidwell, et al., 2026).

Present Research

Guided by temporal intersectional minority stress theory (Rivas-Koehl et al., 2023) and intraminority gay community stress theory (Pachankis et al., 2020), the current study addresses this overarching question: Does intraminority stigma impact gay men across the life course differently? Four specific aims were explored. First, we examined descriptive patterns of six constructs of intraminority stigma experiences—age stigma, socioeconomic stigma, gay nonconformity stigma, racial/ethnic stigma, gender expression stigma, and body stigma—and community involvement across specific age cohorts (i.e., young, middle-aged, and older gay men). Second, we investigated the moderating effects of age on the associations between other stigma-related attributes—socioeconomic status, political affiliation, race/ethnicity, gender expression, and body size—and intraminority stigma experiences. Third, we investigated the moderating effects of age on the associations between stigma-related attributes (as individual and cumulative indicators of status in the context of the mainstream gay community) and community involvement. Fourth, we tested whether associations between intraminority stigma experiences and community involvement varied by age.

Based on previous research on age-based differences in intraminority gay community stress, including higher rates of stress related to perceptions of the gay community’s focus on sex, status, and exclusion of diversity among younger gay and bisexual men relative to their older peers (Pachankis et al., 2020), it was hypothesized that experiences of intraminority socioeconomic stigma, gay nonconformity stigma, racial/ethnic stigma, gender expression stigma, and body stigma will be more common among younger gay men relative to older gay men (Aim 1). Considering the nature and previously documented accounts of ageist stereotypes and discrimination within the gay community, intraminority age stigma was expected to be more commonly experienced among older gay men (Aim 1; Jones, 2001; Wight et al., 2015). Based on the intraminority gay community stress model (Pachankis et al., 2020) and prior research on gay-specific status indicators, body stigma, and community involvement (Shepherd, Denning, et al., 2023), it was hypothesized that older gay men with attributes that do not conform to mainstream community norms and ideals (i.e., lower masculinity, lower SES, higher weight, non-White identity, and/or non-Democrat identity; Foster-Gimbel & Engeln, 2016; Pachankis et al., 2020; Shepherd et al., 2024) will report more frequent intraminority stigma experiences (Aim 2) and lower levels of community involvement (Aim 3) relative to their younger counterparts due to a perceived lack of social status and power in gay spaces. Relatedly, it was hypothesized that intraminority stigma experiences will be associated with lower levels of community involvement (as an indicator of community disconnection/avoidance caused by expectations of stigmatization; Green, 2008, Shepherd, Denning, et al., 2023; Wetzel et al., 2026), especially among older gay men (Aim 4). As an alternative hypothesis, it is also possible that intraminority stigma experiences will be associated with higher levels of community involvement by way of increased intragroup contact/opportunities for stigmatization and that older gay men will be more resilient than younger gay men to such stressors (Aim 4; Pachankis et al., 2020).

Method

Participants and Procedure

Participants aged 19 years and older who self-identified as a “gay male” and were proficient in English were recruited to participate in an online, unpaid study “to measure the frequency of discrimination of gay men by other gay men” from August 2017 to January 2018. Recruitment was primarily passive, via social media advertisements (e.g., invitations posted on Facebook pages and groups geared toward gay men), and all interested and eligible men completed an informed consent before accessing the survey, which contained self-report measures and a demographic questionnaire. A total of 2,159 gay men consented to participate and completed the study anonymously. Participants ranged in age from 19 to 79 years (M = 40.33, SD = 13.43). The sociodemographic characteristics of the sample are presented in Table 1. More information on the sample, how participants were collected, and how their data have been used can be found in Maki (2018) and subsequent studies (Shepherd, Maki, et al., 2023; Shepherd, Denning, et al., 2023, Shepherd, Tidwell, et al., 2026). All study procedures received IRB approval from Auburn University.

Table 1.

Participant Demographics

	Total Sample (N = 2,159)		Young Adult (19–35 years; n = 919; 43%)		Middle-Aged Adult (36–55 years; n = 892; 41%)		Older Adult (56–79 years; n = 348; 16%)
Characteristic	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n
Race/Ethnicity
White	72	1544	64	591	75	665	83	288
People of Color	29	615	35	328	25	227	17	60
Asian	4	78	6	56	2	20	1	2
Black or African American	6	118	6	52	6	53	4	13
Hispanic/Latino	9	194	12	106	9	77	3	11
Biracial/Multiracial	5	106	7	64	4	32	3	10
Another race/ethnicity	6	119	5	50	5	45	7	24
Political affiliation
Democrat	58	1252	53	485	59	522	70	245
Non-Democrat	42	907	47	434	42	370	30	103
Independent	47	423	21	192	19	172	17	59
Republican	14	129	6	57	7	61	3	11
Libertarian	13	120	7	66	5	47	2	7
Another political affiliation	26	235	13	119	10	90	8	26
Nationality
United States	80	1723	74	683	82	732	89	308
Internationala	20	436	26	236	18	160	12	40
Relationship Status
Single	53	1150	60	548	48	432	49	170
In a relationship	25	549	29	262	24	215	21	72
Married	18	385	11	103	23	201	23	81
Divorced	2	41	5	1	3	26	3	10
Widowed	2	34	1	0	2	18	4	15
	M (SD)	Range	M (SD)	Range	M (SD)	Range	M (SD)	Range
Age	40.49 (13.43)	19–79	27.65 (4.48)	19–35	45.46 (6.11)	36–55	61.69 (4.62)	56–79
SES	2.86 (0.91)	1–5	2.70 (.89)	1–5	2.96 (.90)	1–5	3.01 (.93)	1–5
Gender expression	3.61 (0.76)	1–5	3.41 (.80)	1–5	3.75 (.70)	1–5	3.81 (.64)	1–5
Self-perceived weight	3.67 (1.02)	1–5	2.57 (2.11)	1–5	3.81 (.99)	1–5	3.88 (.95)	1–5
Statusb	3.09 (1.12)	0–5	2.86 (1.12)	0–5	3.20 (1.09)	0–5	3.44 (1.07)	0–5

Note. Percentages are rounded up to the nearest whole number.

^aMost international participants in the sample were based in the United Kingdom (30%; n = 132), Canada (17%; n = 76), Australia (10%; n = 45), South Africa (5%; n = 22), the Philippines (5%; n = 21), and Mexico (4%; n = 17).

^bStatus refers to participants’ total number of non-stigmatized/privileged attributes within the context of the mainstream gay community (i.e. more masculine, wealthier/upper-class, average- to lower-weight, White identity, Democrat identity).

Measures

Gay-Specific Intraminority Stigma

The Gay-Specific Intraminority Stigma Inventory (Shepherd, Maki, et al., 2023) was utilized to comprehensively assess what forms of stigma gay men have experienced in their lifetime from other gay men. This inventory contains 20 items and six subscales. Participants were instructed to “respond to statements based on their experience/s with another gay man or group of gay men” on a scale from 1 (never) to 5 (very frequently).

The subscales used in the current study assessed intraminority age stigma (Cronbach’s α = .80; McDonald’s ω = .80; e.g., “I have been treated with less dignity and respect because of my age”), socioeconomic stigma (Cronbach’s α = .77; McDonald’s ω = .77; e.g., “I have been judged on my employment status and perceived level of income”), gay nonconformity stigma (Cronbach’s α = .60; McDonald’s ω = .63; e.g., “I have been told I do not accurately represent the cultural norms and stereotypes of a gay man”), racial/ethnic stigma (Cronbach’s α = .81; McDonald’s ω = .81; “I have been accused of false stereotypes based on my ethnicity or race”), gender expression stigma (Cronbach’s α = .85; McDonald’s ω = .85; e.g., “I have been called derogatory names and harassed for my gender expression [too feminine or masculine]”), and body stigma (Cronbach’s α = .77; McDonald’s ω = .78; e.g., “I have been criticized for my body’s level of muscularity [too little or too much muscle]”). Scale items are provided in Table 2 along with descriptive information. Scores for each subscale were averaged together with higher scores reflecting more frequent experiences of intraminority stigma. The total scale (Cronbach’s α = .90; McDonald’s ω = .90) and subscales (see above) demonstrated acceptable internal validity in the current study.

Table 2.

Rates of Intraminority Stigma Among Gay Men by Scale Item and Age Cohort

Construct	Older (56–79 years; n = 348; 16%)	Middle-aged (36–55 years; n = 892; 41%)	Young (19–35 years; n = 919; 16%)	Overall (N = 2,159)
	%	%	%	%
Age Stigma
1. I have been treated with less dignity and respect because of my age.	66	49	39	48
2. I have been criticized for being at a gay establishment or gathering because of my age.	63	31	18	27
3. I have been excluded from being asked to participate in activities based on my age.	62	43	26	39
Total Score [M (SD)]	2.58 (1.00)	2.27 (0.95)	1.97 (.83)	2.19 (0.94)
Socioeconomic Stigma
1. I have been left out of group gatherings based on my perceived socioeconomic status.	40	39	33	37
I have been mistreated because of my perceived socioeconomic status.	35	35	35	35
3. I have been judged on my employment status and perceived level of income.	51	54	52	52
Total Score [M (SD)]	2.29 (0.94)	2.32 (0.94)	2.26 (.92)	2.29 (0.93)
Gay Nonconformity Stigma
1. I have received criticism for my political beliefs or party affiliations.	51	48	48	49
2. I have been teased for having interests and hobbies that are not typical of other gay men.	46	53	59	55
3. I have been told I do not accurately represent the cultural norms and stereotypes of a gay man.	50	64	67	63
Total Score [M (SD)]	2.46 (0.87)	2.69 (0.92)	2.78 (.89)	2.69 (0.90)
Racial/Ethnic Stigma
1. I have been accused of false stereotypes based on my ethnicity.	23	31	41	34
2. I have been treated with less respect based on my race/ethnicity at a gay establishment and/or gathering.	17	21	26	22
3. I have been desired by someone of another race or ethnicity as a means to fulfill a fetish.	35	37	40	38
4. I have heard derogatory jokes and comments about people of my race/ethnicity at a gay bar and/or gathering.	31	39	42	39
Total Score [M (SD)]	1.87 (0.83)	2.06 (0.93)	2.12 (1.04)	2.10 (0.97)
Gender Expression Stigma
1. I have been told I need to behave more masculine or feminine.	22	32	52	39
2. I have been teased for the way I express my gender at gay establishments and/or gatherings.	13	17	23	19
3. I have been called derogatory names and harassed for my gender expression (too feminine or masculine).	26	29	45	35
4. have been told I should be more or less “straight-acting.”	24	31	52	39
Total Score [M (SD)]	1.77 (0.77)	1.94 (0.88)	2.36 (.97)	2.09 (0.93)
Body Stigma
1. I have been told I should gain or lose weight.	60	69	75	70
2. I have been criticized for my body’s level of muscularity (too little or too much muscle).	40	48	60	52
3. I have been physically touched while being told I should change something about my appearance or body size.	35	43	46	43
Total Score [M (SD)]	2.35 (0.90)	2.64 (0.97)	2.89 (1.04)	2.70 (1.01)

Note. Participants were asked, “Please respond to each of the following statements based on your experience/s with another gay man or group of gay men by clicking on the level of frequency.” Participants responded to each item on a scale from 1 (never) to 5 (very frequently). Percentages represent participants who endorsed an “occasional,” “frequent,” or “very frequent” experience of intraminority stigma.

Stigma- and Status-Related Attributes – Individual and Composite Variables

Participants self-reported their age, self-perceived weight, gender expression, socioeconomic status (SES), race/ethnicity, and political affiliation. For ease of interpretation, age was examined as a trichotomous variable categorizing participants into the following groups: Young adults (n = 919, ages 19–35 years; primarily Millennials), middle-aged adults (n = 892, ages 36–55 years; primarily Gen X), and older adults (n = 348, ages 56–79 years; primarily Baby Boomers). These specific age ranges were chosen based on sample size restrictions, generational cohort considerations (Fry, 2020), and prior adult lifespan research (Loy-Ashe et al., 2024; Noftle & Fleeson, 2010; Petry, 2002). For greater statistical variability and precision, age was also examined as a continuous variable.

Self-perceived weight was measured on 5-point scale ranging from 1 (underweight) to 5 (overweight). Possible responses included: “underweight” (1), “slightly below average” (2), “average” (3), “slightly above average” (4), and “overweight” (5). Gender expression was measured on 5-point scale ranging from 1 (extremely feminine) to 5 (extremely masculine). Possible responses included: “extremely feminine” (1), “feminine” (2), “neither feminine nor masculine” (3), “masculine” (4), and “extremely masculine” (5). SES was measured on 5-point scale ranging from 1 (lower class) to 5 (upper class). Possible responses included: “lower class” (1), “lower-middle class” (2), “middle class” (3), “middle-upper class” (4), and “upper class” (5). For race/ethnicity, response options included “African American/Black,” “Hispanic/Latino,” “White,” “Asian,” “American Indian,” “Hawaiian/Pacific Islander,” and “Multiracial/biracial.” Participants also had the option of specifying another race/ethnicity. Due to sample size restrictions and for ease of interpretation, race/ethnicity was analyzed as a binary variable, coding participants as White [0] or non-White/People of Color [1] (inclusive of all other responses). For political affiliation, the response options included “Democrat,” “Republican,” “Libertarian, and “Independent.” Participants also had the option of specifying another political affiliation. Political affiliation was coded as a binary variable, Democrat [1] or non-Democrat [0] (inclusive of all other responses).

Similar to prior research on intraminority gay community stress (Pachankis et al., 2020), to measure participants’ overall level of status within the context of the mainstream gay community, a composite score (M = 3.09, SD = 1.12, Range = 0–5) was constructed by recoding stigma-related attributes (except for age) into binary status indicators (i.e., whether participants identified as more masculine than feminine [1] or non-masculine [0], wealthy/middle-upper class to upper class [1] or non-wealthy [0], average- to lower-weight [1] or higher-weight [0], White [1] or non-White [0], and politically liberal/Democrat [1] or non-Democrat [0]) and adding them together.

Community Involvement

Community involvement was assessed with a single item (i.e., “How often do you attend gay-specific establishments and/or gatherings?”) on an 8-point scale ranging from 1 (never) to 8 (daily; Shepherd, Maki, et al., 2023). Possible responses included: “never” (1), “less than once a year” (2), “every six months” (3), “every 2–3 months” (4), “monthly” (5), “weekly” (6), “more than a few times a week” (7), and “daily” (8). Higher scores indicate greater community involvement in terms of attending gay-specific venues and/or gatherings.

Data Analysis

Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS 31.0 (IBM Corp, 2024); all p-values < .05 were considered statistically significant and two-tailed p-values are reported. Preliminary analyses were conducted to ensure data normality based on ranges of kurtosis and skewness values (i.e., skewness < |2.00| and kurtosis < |2.00|; George & Mallery, 2010), internal reliability based on Cronbach’s alpha (α) and McDonald’s Omega (ω) estimates (Deng & Chan, 2017), descriptive statistics, and bivariate correlations across the study measures. In addition, cross-tabulation frequencies were used to quantify participants’ endorsement of occasional (3), frequent (4), and very frequent (5) intraminority stigma experiences across constructs of age stigma, socioeconomic stigma, gay nonconformity stigma, gender expression stigma, and body stigma among three age cohorts (i.e., young, middle-aged, and older gay men).

To address Aim 1, one-way ANOVAs were conducted with age cohort (three groups) as the independent variable and each intraminority stigma subscale as a dependent variable; community involvement was also analyzed as a dependent outcome. For significant omnibus F tests, partial eta-squared (η_p²) estimates were reported, using .01, .06, and .14 as benchmarks for small, medium, and large effects (Cohen, 1992). When the main effect of age cohort was significant, Bonferroni-adjusted post hoc comparisons were performed to test pairwise mean differences among young, middle-aged, and older gay men while controlling for the familywise Type I error rate. For significant pairwise differences, effect sizes were assessed using Cohen’s d, with 0.20, 0.50, and 0.80 indicating small, medium, and large effects, respectively (Cohen, 1992).

To address Aims 2–4, multiple linear regression models with interactions were tested using the PROCESS macro (model 1; Hayes, 2018). Specifically, these models examined the moderating effects of participant age on 1) the associations between individual stigma-related attributes (i.e., SES, political affiliation, race/ethnicity, gender expression, and self-perceived weight) and corresponding intraminority stigma experiences (i.e., socioeconomic stigma, gay nonconformity stigma, racial/ethnic stigma, gender expression stigma, and body stigma; Aim 2); 2) the associations between status (as indicated by participants’ total number of non-stigmatized identities/attributes)—and intraminority stigma experiences (Aim 2); 3) the associations between individual stigma-related attributes and community involvement (Aim 3); and 4) the association between status and community involvement (Aim 3); and, lastly, 5) the associations between intraminority stigma experiences and community involvement (Aim 4). Status-relevant sociodemographic characteristics were included as covariates in the models when not examined as a predictor. Using the Johnson-Neyman technique (Lin, 2020), significant interactions were probed to identify the specific ages when associations change from significant to non-significant. All moderation analyses were conducted using 5,000 bootstrap samples; associations were considered significant when the 95% confidence interval did not include zero.

Results

The most salient forms of intraminority stigma experienced by gay men were related to body stigma (e.g., 70% of gay men reported at least occasionally being told to lose or gain weight), gay nonconformity stigma (e.g., 53% of gay men reported at least occasionally being told that they do not accurately represent the cultural norms and stereotypes of a gay man), and socioeconomic stigma (e.g., 52% of gay men reported at least occasionally being judged on their employment status and perceived level of income). However, when the sample was stratified by age cohort, rates of at least occasional intraminority age stigma experiences were quite high among middle-aged and older gay men (62–66%) compared to young gay men (18–39%), whereas rates of most—but not all—other experiences of intraminority stigma were lower among older age groups. Descriptive statistics and correlations between the gay-specific intraminority stigma experiences (age stigma, socioeconomic stigma, gay nonconformity stigma, racial/ethnic stigma, gender expression stigma, and body stigma), community involvement, age, and status are presented in Table 3.

Table 3.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Between Key Measures

	M (SD)	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1. Age Stigma	2.19 (0.94)	--
2. Socioeconomic Stigma	2.29 (0.93)	.55***	--
3. Gay Nonconformity Stigma	2.69 (0.90)	.41***	.47***	--
4. Racial/Ethnic Stigma	2.10 (0.97)	.27***	.37***	.36***	--
5. Gender Expression Stigma	2.09 (0.93)	.38***	.45***	.40***	.45***	--
6. Body Stigma	2.70 (1.01)	.41***	.48***	.42***	.39***	.60***	--
7. Total Intraminority Stigma	2.32 (0.69)	.67***	.74***	.68***	.69***	.78***	.76***	--
8. Community Involvement	3.87 (1.54)	−.04	.01	−.04*	.06*	−.08***	−.08***	−.04	--
9. Age	40.49 (13.43)	.22***	.003	−.13***	−.15***	−.27***	−.22***	−.14***	.05*	--
10. Status	3.09 (1.12)	−.10***	−.20***	−.16***	−.29***	−.33***	−.33***	−.34***	.19***	.24***

^*p < .05

^**p < .01

^***p < .001.

One-way ANOVAs

Intraminority age stigma differed significantly by age cohort (F(2, 2156) = 52.31, p < .001, η_p² = .06). Older gay men (M = 2.58, SD = 1.00) reported more intraminority age stigma than middle-aged gay men (M = 2.27, SD = .95); t(2157) = 3.99, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 0.23) and young gay men (M = 1.97, SD = .83; t(2157) = 8.02, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 0.50). Middle-aged gay men reported more intraminority age stigma than young gay men (t(2157) = 5.37, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 0.26).

Intraminority gay nonconformity stigma differed significantly by age cohort (F(2,2156) = 11.68, p < .001, η_p² = .01). Older gay men (M = 2.38, SD = .79) reported less intraminority gay nonconformity stigma than middle-aged gay men (M = 2.56, SD = .83; t(2157) = 3.38, p = .002, Cohen’s d = .22) and young gay men (M = 2.63, SD = .81); t(2157) = 4.83, p < .001, Cohen’s d = .31). Middle-aged and young gay men reported comparative levels of intraminority gay nonconformity stigma (t(2157) = 1.92, p = .132).

Intraminority racial/ethnic stigma differed significantly by age cohort (F(2,2156) = 17.72, p < .001, η_p² = .02). Young gay men (M = 2.22, SD = 1.04) reported more intraminority racial/ethnic stigma than middle-aged gay men (M = 2.06, SD = .93; t(2157) = 3.43, p = .002, Cohen’s d = .16) and older gay men (M = 1.87, SD = .83; t(2157) = 5.79, p < .001, Cohen’s d = .37). Middle-aged gay men reported more intraminority racial/ethnic stigma than older gay men (t(2157) = 3.38, p = .004, Cohen’s d = .22).

Intraminority gender expression stigma differed significantly by age cohort (F(2,2156) = 43.23, p < .001, η_p² = .07). Young gay men (M = 2.36, SD = .97) reported more intraminority gender expression stigma than middle-aged gay men (M = 1.94, SD = .88; t(2157) = 9.73, p < .001, Cohen’s d = .45) and older gay men (M = 1.77, SD = .77; t(2157) = 10.42, p < .001, Cohen’s d = .67). Middle-aged gay men reported more intraminority gender expression stigma than older gay men (t(2157) = 3.14, p = .005, Cohen’s d = .21).

Intraminority body stigma differed significantly by age cohort (F(2,2156) = 74.42, p < .001, η_p² = .04). Young gay men (M = 2.65, SD = .91) reported more intraminority body stigma than middle-aged gay men (M = 2.40, SD = .85; t(2157) = 6.07, p < .001, Cohen’s d = .28) and older gay men (M = 2.17, SD = .80; t(2157) = 8.78, p < .001, Cohen’s d = .56). Middle-aged gay men reported more intraminority body stigma than older gay men (t(2157) = 4.23, p < .001, Cohen’s d = .28).

Intraminority socioeconomic stigma did not differ significantly by age cohort (F(2,2156) = 0.61, p = .546, η_p² = .001), nor did gay community involvement (F(2,2156) = 2.39, p = .092, η_p² = .002).

Moderation Analyses

Age x Stigma-Related Attributes

A significant interaction between participant age and SES was observed on intraminority socioeconomic stigma (b = −.004, SE = .002, p = .013, 95% CI [−.0070, −.0008]), before and after adjusting for other sociodemographic characteristics. Specifically, the association between SES and intraminority socioeconomic stigma was negative and stronger for older gay men (+1 SD; b = −.25, SE = .03, p < .001, 95% CI [−.3050, −.1874]) compared to younger gay men (−1 SD; b = −.14, SE = .03, p < .001, 95% CI [−.2017, −.0800]), indicating that older gay men with lower SES faced the highest rates of socioeconomic stigma from other gay men compared to younger gay men with lower SES. Similarly, a significant interaction between age and self-perceived weight was observed on intraminority body stigma (b = −.003, SE = .001, p = .031, 95% CI [.0003, .0060]), before and after adjusting for other sociodemographic characteristics. Specifically, the association between self-perceived weight and intraminority body stigma was positive and stronger for older gay men (+1 SD; b = .32, SE = .03, p < .001, 95% CI [.2675, .3806]) compared to younger gay men (−1 SD; b = .24, SE = .03, p < .001, 95% CI [.1871, .2926]), indicating that older higher-weight gay men faced higher rates of body stigma from other gay men compared to their younger, same-size peers. Age did not interact with any other stigma-related attributes—race/ethnicity, gender expression, or political affiliation—to predict intraminority stigma experiences.

Regarding gay community involvement, age did not interact with participant SES, race/ethnicity, gender expression, or self-perceived weight, but did interact with participant political affiliation (b = −.01, SE = .01, p = .010, 95% CI [−.0026, −.0031]) such that the positive association between being a Democrat and community involvement (0 SD; b = .35, SE = .07, p < .001, 95% CI [.2173, .4787]) was accentuated by younger age (−1 SD; b = .52, SE = .09, p < .001, 95% CI [.3392, .7016]) and attenuated by older age (+1 SD; p = .069). However, this interaction effect was only significant after adjusting for other sociodemographic characteristics including SES, race/ethnicity, gender expression, and self-perceived weight. Of note, the main effects of masculinity (b = .11, SE = .05, p = .013, 95% CI [.0237, .1985), wealth (b = .22, SE = .04, p < .001, 95% CI [.1270, .2902), and self-perceived weight (b = −.16, SE = .03, p < .001, 95% CI [−.2254, −.0977, .4787) on community involvement were significant, whereas the main effects of age (p = .257) and race/ethnicity were non-significant (p = .606).

Age x Status

Age interacted with status (i.e., number of non-stigmatized attributes; b = −.003, SE =.001, p = .040, 95% CI [.0001, .0050]) such that the negative association between status and intraminority gender expression stigma (0 SD; b = −.24, SE = .02, p <. 001, 95% CI [−.2710, −.2042]) was stronger for younger gay men (−1 SD; b = −.27, SE = .02, p <. 001, 95% CI [−.3181, −.2260]) compared to older gay men (+1 SD; b = −.20, SE = .02, p < .001, 95% CI [−.2508, −.1553]) yet still significant across the age spectrum. Regarding other intraminority stigma experiences, no other interactions between age and status were detected.

A significant interaction between age and status was observed on gay community involvement (b = −.01, SE =.002, p < .001, 95% CI [−.0118, −.0033]). As illustrated in Figure 2, higher status was associated with greater community involvement (0 SD; b = .26, SE = .03, p < .001, 95% CI [.1973, .3143]), and this association was stronger among younger gay men (−1 SD; b = .36, SE = .04, p < .001, 95% CI [.2764, .4378]) compared to older gay men (+1 SD; b = .15, SE = .04, p < .001, 95% CI [.0708, .2381]) yet still significant up to a certain age. At the age of 60 years and older, the association between status and community involvement was non-significant (ps ≥ .05).

Figure 2. Status and Gay Community Involvement Moderated by Age.

Note. For age, “older” (M = 53.92 years) indicates 1 SD above the mean (40.49 years), and “younger” (M = 27.06 years) indicates 1 SD below the mean (40.49 years). In the context of the gay community, “status” refers to a combination of being wealthier, more masculine, average/lower-weight, White, and/or a Democrat.

Age x Intraminority Stigma Experiences

A significant interaction between age and intraminority body stigma was observed on community involvement, even after adjusting for self-perceived weight and other sociodemographic status indicators (b = .01, SE = .003, p = .005, 95% CI [.0021, .0118]). Specifically, the association between intraminority body stigma and community involvement was negative and significant among younger gay men (−1 SD; b = −.10, SE = .04, p = .021, 95% CI [−.1936, −.0158]), non-significant for gay men between the ages of 30 years and 59 years (ps ≥ .05), and positive and significant for gay men aged 60 years and older (bs = .12–.26, SEs = .06–.11, ps < .05, 95% CIs [.0009–.0503, .2489–.4633]). There were no significant interactions between age and any other form of intraminority stigma regarding community involvement.

Discussion

This cross-sectional study is one of the first to quantitatively explore patterns of intraminority stigma, community involvement, and their interactions with age among gay men across the lifespan, ranging from emerging adulthood to elderhood. Findings demonstrate that multiple forms of intraminority stigma is experienced differently among gay men depending on their age and intersecting identities/attributes that may maximize (or limit) their access to status and belonging within gay communities. Specifically, age was positively associated with intraminority age stigma and negatively associated with other forms of intraminority stigma such that older gay men reported more frequent instances of age stigma from other gay men and significantly less frequent instances of gay nonconformity, racial/ethnic, gender expression, and body stigma from other gay men than younger age cohorts. Interactions between age and other stigma-related attributes indicated that less wealthy older gay men and higher-weight older gay men also reported significantly more frequent instances of intraminority socioeconomic stigma and intraminority body stigma, respectively, than their younger counterparts. Age also interacted with participants’ total number of status-related attributes (i.e., more masculine, wealthy/higher-SES, White, average/lower-weight, and/or politically liberal/Democrat) such that higher status was associated with less frequent experiences of intraminority gender expression stigma and greater community involvement, especially among younger gay men. Finally, the strength and direction of the association between intraminority body stigma and community involvement varied by age, negative among gay men under 30 years old and positive among gay men over 59 years old.

General and Age-Related Patterns of Intraminority Stigma

Weight-based stigma (e.g., being told to lose or gain weight by other gay men) was among the most reported types of intraminority stigma within the overall sample, mirroring past research on expectations and experiences of rigid and unrealistic body standards, body dissatisfaction, and disordered eating within among gay men (Barnhart et al., 2026; Cordes et al., 2021; Foster-Gimbel & Engeln, 2016; Levesque & Vichesky, 2006; Wetzel et al., 2026). Consistent with previously documented perceptions of the mainstream gay community’s focus on competition and status (Pachankis et al., 2020), rates of intraminority gay nonconformity stigma (e.g., being teased or criticized for having interests and hobbies that are not typical of other gay men and not accurately represent the cultural norms and stereotypes of a gay man)—and intraminority socioeconomic stigma—particularly judgments based on employment status and perceived level of income—were also high within the overall sample.

Intraminority stigma experiences among gay men varied significantly by age, above the effects of other sociodemographic characteristics. Unsurprisingly, experiences of intraminority age stigma were more commonly reported among older gay men relative to younger cohorts, with more than 60% of older gay men reporting that they are at least occasionally treated with less dignity and respect, criticized for being at a gay establishment or gathering, and excluded from being asked to participate in activities because of their age. These findings support and extend prior qualitative and quantitative work on gay men’s experiences of age-based stereotypes, rejection, and exclusion (Boggs et al., 2014; Kum, 2017; Kushner et al., 2013), including a recent study showing that older age strengthens the positive association between gay dating app use and frequency of exposure to intraminority age stigma (Shepherd, Tidwell, et al., 2026). Such adverse interpersonal experiences combined with structural manifestations of ageism within the gay community (e.g., programming and resources being allocated primarily to youth) likely increase older gay men’s risk for social isolation, loneliness, and depressive symptoms (Jones, 2001; Hoy-Ellis et al., 2016; Wight et al., 2015; Wright et al., 2024).

Unlike intraminority age stigma, intraminority racial/ethnic stigma, gender expression stigma, body stigma, and gay nonconformity stigma were more commonly experienced by younger gay men. This finding is consistent with previous research indicating that intraminority stress related to perceptions of the gay community’s focus on sex, status, and exclusion of diversity disproportionately affects younger gay men relative to their older peers (Pachankis et al., 2020). Furthermore, lower status (i.e., possessing a greater number of stigmatized attributes) was more strongly associated with intraminority gender expression stigma among younger gay men relative to older gay men. One possible explanation for this is that younger gay men are more likely to derive their self-worth and personal power from status-focused success and masculine presentations and therefore more likely to perpetuate these hegemonic ideals by stigmatizing other men with less status, including those who express their gender more femininely (Hammack et al., 2022; Pachankis & Hatzenbuehler, 2013; Thepsourinthone et al., 2020).

The observed age-based patterns of intraminority stigma may also result from a generational cohort effect; younger adults might be more aware of “-isms” and more sensitive to issues surrounding discrimination than older adults due to intergenerational changes in sociopolitical climate, education, and diversity (Bitterman & Hess, 2020; Parker & Igielnik, 2021). It is plausible that younger gay men may feel more attuned to certain expectations related to society’s increasing acceptance of gay culture that may perpetuate negative aspects of popular or mainstream gay culture in ways that their older peers, who grew up in an environment where gay culture was less visible and more stigmatized, are not as accustomed to. Social media use may also play a role. Although older lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults are more likely to use online social networking sites than heterosexual older adults (Grady & Stinchcombe, 2025), younger gay men may engage with social media more frequently than older gay men, increasing their risk of exposure to rigid body, racial/ethnic, and gender norms perpetuated within the gay community (Filice et al., 2019; García-Gómez, 2020; Han & Choi, 2018; Rezende et al., 2025; Sumter et al., 2021). In addition, the sociodemographic characteristics of the sample, stratified by age, as well as the positive correlation between age and status suggest that older participants generally possessed a greater number of non-stigmatized/privileged attributes, lowering their likelihood of experiencing forms of intraminority stigma other than ageism.

Interestingly, reports of intraminority socioeconomic stigma only varied by age when SES was accounted for, with less wealthy older gay men experiencing more exclusion, mistreatment, and judgments from other gay men than less wealthy young gay men. This finding suggests class-based expectations within the gay community may be higher and more rigid for older men, who may have experienced more social and economic disadvantages in their lifetime due to discrimination relative to younger gay men but also have had more time to build their careers and accrue wealth (Emlet, 2016; Kum, 2017). Consistent with past research shows that gay men with lower SES face financial and psychosocial barriers to accessing the gay community (Barrett & Pollack, 2005), greater wealth was associated with greater community involvement; however, intraminority socioeconomic stigma experiences alone do not seem to discourage or prevent gay men from finding ways to attend gay-specific establishments or gatherings as no significant association was found between intraminority socioeconomic stigma and community involvement across the age spectrum.

Age, Status, and Community Involvement

Frequency of community involvement was positively correlated with age, contrary to our hypothesis that older gay men would avoid gay spaces more to avoid intraminority age stigma—a possible sign of psychological resistance to stigma. However, the association between age and community involvement was non-significant when the effects of other status-relevant sociodemographic variables, particularly masculinity, SES, self-perceived weight, and political affiliation, were accounted for. This suggests that age alone may not be sufficient to maximize or limit gay men’s potential for community involvement. However, age interacted with community-specific status indicators to predict significant variations in community involvement. For example, the positive association between being a Democrat and community involvement was weaker but still significant for older gay men, possibly because younger cohorts tend to be more politically liberal (Public Region Research Institute [PRRI]; 2024). This finding also lends support to recent evidence showing that Republican gay men generally feel more disconnected from the LGBT community (Meyer & Choi, 2020; Worthen, 2020), although most of the participants who fell under the “non-Democrat” category identified as “Independent” in terms of their political affiliation. Individually, no other status-relevant attribute interacted with age on community involvement, not even SES or self-perceived weight.

When participants’ total number of status indicators was tested as a single, cumulative variable, higher status was associated with greater community involvement among gay men of all ages. This is unsurprising considering that gay men who meet the standards of or conform to mainstream community norms and ideals—whether younger or older—are generally afforded more value, desirability, and belonging within gay spaces, whereas lower-status gay men are more likely to experience criticism, rejection, and exclusion, potentially due to stigma-driven status hierarchies (Green, 2008; Pachankis et al., 2020; Shepherd, Denning, et al., 2023). Furthermore, status interacted with age such that the positive association between status and community involvement was significantly stronger among younger gay men. These findings complement and may partly extend the intraminority gay community stress model (Pachankis et al., 2020), which shows that higher status (as indicated by wealth, masculinity, and attractiveness) is indirectly associated with lower levels psychological distress through lower levels of stress related to perceptions of the mainstream gay community and that younger gay and bisexual men are more susceptible to these stressors than older gay and bisexual men (Pachankis et al., 2020). Given the importance of perceived belonging for gay men’s mental health (Chai, 2024; Morris et al., 2015), it is possible that status-based disparities in community involvement may serve as a mechanism through which intraminority gay community stress adversely affects the mental health of lower-status gay men—especially those who are younger.

Age, Intraminority Stigma, and Community Involvement

Unexpectedly, not every form of intraminority stigma (e.g., age stigma, socioeconomic stigma) was associated with community involvement, and only the association between intraminority body stigma and community involvement varied by age. Different types of gay-specific establishments and gatherings cater to different groups of gay men yet still may place an emphasis on physical appearance and overly value certain body types (Foster-Gimbel et al., 2020; Foster-Gimbel & Engeln, 2016; Prestage et al., 2015; Wetzel et al., 2026). Unlike older gay men, younger gay men’s level of community involvement was negatively associated with the frequency with which they experience body stigma from other gay men, possibly as an avoidance-based coping strategy in response to lower expected social and sexual rewards and higher rejection sensitivity (Cohen et al., 2016; Green, 2008; Slimowicz et al., 2020). Limiting intragroup contact may feel safer for gay men of varying body types and ages; however, chronically prioritizing safety from potentially adverse experiences in gay spaces thwarts opportunities for desirable and meaningful social connections with other gay men, exacerbating feelings of loneliness and exclusion (Cacioppo & Cacioppo, 2014; Maner & Kendrick, 2010). Considering the previously documented benefits of gay community involvement and connectedness (Detrie & Lease, 2007; Foster-Gimbel et al., 2020; Petruzzella et al., 2019; Salfas et al., 2019; Shepherd et al., 2026), lack of access to or avoidance of gay-specific establishments and gatherings likely comes at a cost—both socially and psychologically.

Gay men predominantly live in heteronormative and heterosexist environments; as such, community-based social connections may be even more important across the lifespan due to gay men’s, and particularly older gay men’s, social networks being generally smaller and less consistent than their heterosexual peers (Breder & Bockting, 2024; Monin et al., 2017; Shepherd et al., 2021). However, the current finding that the negative association between intraminority body stigma and community involvement was significant only among gay men under 30 suggests that younger gay men are more susceptible to and avoidant of body-related pressures within the gay community, whereas older gay men—even those who experience higher levels of body stigma from other gay men—are not necessarily less involved within the gay community. In fact, for gay men aged 60 years and older, the association between intraminority body stigma and community involvement was positive and significant. One potential explanation is that younger gay men tend to be more stressed or bothered by perceptions of the mainstream gay community’s focus on sex, status, and exclusion of diversity and more prone to body image concerns compared to older gay men (Pachankis et al., 2020; Simpson, 2024). As gay men age, their social circles and priorities may shift (e.g., valuing meaningful relationships over physical intimacy and appearance), providing some protection against certain forms of intraminority stress, including body-related pressures.

Limitations and Future Directions

This study has several limitations that can be addressed in future research. In addition to self-selection bias, the sample was predominantly White (72%) and based in the United States (80%), a pattern that appear pronounced among older participants. It is likely that experiences of intraminority racial/ethnic stigma would have been more widely reported should each age cohort have consisted of a greater number of gay men of color who reside in the US or, if international, are considered racial/ethnic minorities in their respective countries of residence (Chen et al., 2020; Han & Choi, 2018). Gay men of color who use dating apps more frequently are also more likely to encounter intraminority racial/ethnic stigma (Shepherd, Parra, et al., 2026; Shepherd, Tidwell, et al., 2026). In terms of gender diversity within the sample, all participants identified as gay men, which means some might have been transmasculine. Intraminority stress related to perceptions of the mainstream gay community also affects bisexual and other non-heterosexual men (Pachankis et al., 2020). Future research is encouraged to recruit sexually diverse samples and use gender-inclusive data collection methods (e.g., identifying gender identity and assigned sex at birth; Lagos & Compton, 2021; Beischel et al., 2023) to capture potential differences in intraminority stigma experiences and community involvement based on sexual identity and gender identity.

Given the cross-sectional nature of our study, causation between the examined variables cannot be inferred. In particular, it is unclear whether intraminority body stigma experiences decreased attendance at gay-specific establishments or gatherings among young gay men and whether attendance at gay-specific establishments or gatherings increased intraminority body stigma experiences among older gay men—or whether these associations are due to unobserved variables (e.g., age-related differences in community perceptions, dating app use, and stigma reactions). As such, longitudinal research is needed to understand the effects, trajectories, and moderators of intraminority stigma experiences and community involvement over time, specifically among different age cohorts.

In terms of measurement limitations and recommendations, future research should evaluate the psychometric suitability of the G-SISI (Shepherd, Maki, et al., 2023) among gay men across age groups, as its subscales may operate differently by age cohort or historical period. Researchers should also assess community involvement as a multidimensional construct (e.g., community activities, nightlife, media, political activism; Foster-Gimbel et al., 2020; Kim et al., 2024), as specific forms of community involvement may differentially facilitate or buffer intraminority stigma. Also, not all possible forms of intraminority stigma were examined, such as stigma based on disability status and HIV status, both of which may be more prevalent among older gay men due to physical health disparities and the increasing survival rates among people with HIV (Chan et al., 2025; Fredriksen-Goldsen, Emlet et al., 2013, 2017).

Finally, as no concrete health outcomes were measured in this study, future research is encouraged to explore whether, how, and under what conditions intraminority stigma experiences, community involvement, and their interplay may affect the social, mental, and physical well-being of gay men across the lifespan, ideally through the integrated lens of temporal intersectional minority stress theory (Rivas-Koehl et al., 2023) and intraminority gay community stress theory (Pachankis et al., 2020). Although there is ample research focused on the psychosocial and health effects of stigma from heterosexual people on gay men, less is known about patterns of intraminority stigma, community disconnection, and related stress among this group and its intersectional subgroups. Such knowledge could help explain age-related health trends among and inform intervention efforts for gay men (Choi & Meyer, 2016; Green et al., 2018; Lelutiu-Weinberger et al., 2013; Rowan et al., 2021; Talamas et al., 2018).

Clinical Implications

This study has important implications for clinical practice with gay men of all ages. As a source of rejection and exclusion, intraminority stigma can arouse a wide range of powerful emotions (e.g., anger, sadness, loneliness) that may, when dysregulated, contribute to negative mental health outcomes (Cohen et al., 2016; Leary, 2015; Lemay et al., 2012; Major et al., 2002). Although recent research has begun to incorporate minority stress into evidence-based case conceptualizations and treatment approaches (Burger et al., 2026; Cardona et al., 2022; Pachankis et al., 2022), the emerging concepts of “intersectional minority stress” and “intraminority gay community stress” are given little attention in clinical practice, despite their previously documented associations with psychological distress, body dissatisfaction, disordered eating, substance use, and sexual risk-taking (Burton et al., 2020; Denning et al., 2025; Hosgor et al., 2025; Mahon et al., 2021; Pachankis et al., 2020; Shepherd et al., 2025; Soulliard et al., 2024, 2025). Like heterosexist stigma, intraminority stigma could be conceptualized as another potential source of stress that contributes to negative community perceptions, social disconnection, and self-devaluation—targets that can be addressed in therapy and other interventions to foster adaptive coping, resilience, and resistance to stigma (Turan et al., 2019; Yen et al., 2025). For example, attributing experiences of stigma based on an aspect of one’s identity and even one’s own biases to stigmatizing social systems that transcend communities may help multiply marginalized gay men maintain a positive sense of self and community despite experiences of intraminority stigma both in person and online (Hammack et al., 2022; Le & Kler, 2024; Shepherd, Parra, et al., 2026; Shepherd, Tidwell, et al., 2026). Furthermore, our findings suggest it will be important for clinicians to consider how age may intersect with other status-relevant attributes to influence gay men’s perceptions of and experiences within gay communities.

Conclusion

Overall, this study’s findings highlight distinct yet interconnected forms of intraminority stigma faced by gay men as well as the unique patterns of these stigmas and community involvement based on age, which may help contextualize the elevated social and mental health risks faced by gay men across the life course. These results lay the groundwork for further exploration into the micro- and macro-systems that contribute to experiences of intraminority stigma and variations in community involvement over time, as well as the socio-historical contexts within which these experiences occur. Gaining awareness and understanding of the intersection of sexual orientation, age, and other relevant identities or attributes can help health professionals, policymakers, and other agents of change develop culturally responsive interventions that support gay men of all ages and backgrounds in coping with general and identity-specific stressors experienced from within gay communities and society at large.