Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Despite the growing body of research on people disclosing sensitive details about their identities or experiences online, few studies have focused on how individuals with intersecting stigmas manage these disclosures. Those facing multiple, overlapping sources of discrimination may encounter compounded challenges, which can complicate their assessment of the perceived benefits and risks of disclosure. This study seeks to understand disclosure among individuals with intersecting stigmas by examining how queer-identifying individuals in Mumbai, India, navigate the intersection of queerness and mental health disclosures on social media. Based on qualitative findings from 35 interviews, we identify three key factors that can further enhance existing disclosure frameworks. First, the perceived risk of disclosure can be amplified by intersecting sources of stigma, such that people may be particularly wary of disclosing at all, and especially on social media. Second, the importance of community support and resources for those with intersecting stigmas can increase their focus on the communal benefits of disclosure. Third, prior experiences with disclosing stigma on particular social platforms can affect the perceived safety of disclosing on those platforms and influence the strategies used. We discuss the implications of these findings and suggest areas for further investigation to develop a more comprehensive disclosure framework for those with intersecting stigmas.

Keywords

social media sensitive disclosure intersectional stigma queerness mental health

Introduction

Disclosing sensitive information on social media, such as one’s sexual or gender identity, mental health struggles, or a criminal history, can be both beneficial and risky to the discloser. Sharing within a supportive community can help people find social support and advice and aid in forming relationships and stigma reduction (Andalibi et al., 2017; Haimson et al., 2015). Yet, when they are seen by unsupportive or hostile audiences, these disclosures also carry the risk of social isolation, rejection, and harassment (DeVito, 2022). Consequently, people are often strategic in their disclosure decisions, carefully considering how, when, and to whom they disclose sensitive or potentially stigmatizing information (Andalibi et al., 2018; Birnholtz & Macapagal, 2021; Ferris & Duguay, 2020; Warner et al., 2020).

Several scholars have proposed disclosure frameworks, or models that help us understand people’s considerations in disclosing information about themselves. For example, Derlega and Grzelak’s (1979) functional theory of self-disclosure identifies several reasons people may disclose, such as expressing themselves and seeking validation from others. Bazarova and Choi (2014) extend this theory, looking at disclosure on social networking sites, and find that additional motivations for disclosing online include sharing information and entertainment. Subsequently, Andalibi and Forte (2018) proposed a framework specifically focused on sensitive personal disclosures online, showing how self, audience, network, societal, temporal, and platform factors influence people’s decisions to disclose.

Emerging evidence suggests that people with multiple, intersecting stigmas may experience disclosure differently, such that these models may be inadequate to fully understand their experiences (Moore, 2017; Romo, 2018). Those with intersecting stigmas encounter compounded discrimination, which can complicate their assessment of the perceived benefits and risks of disclosure. For example, Pyle et al. (2021) found that their participants, who faced stigma from both their LGBTQ+ identities and their experience of pregnancy loss, felt compelled to disclose their identities to challenge dominant narratives about their communities, and thus raise awareness of and normalize LGBTQ+ pregnancy. Additional work suggests that individuals with multiple stigmas also face increased harassment online (Haimson et al., 2021; Mayworm et al., 2024). This may, in turn, lead them to adopt indirect or less-obvious disclosure strategies to mitigate risk. To better understand the experiences and risks faced by marginalized individuals disclosing intersecting stigmas, we need frameworks that account for multiple potential sources of stigma within the context of individuals’ holistic online experiences.

Developing a disclosure framework that accounts for intersecting stigmas requires us to understand how these individuals perceive the benefits and risks of disclosure and the strategies they use to navigate the disclosure process. However, creating such a framework is complicated by the nearly endless combinatorial possibilities of overlapping marginalized identities, cultural contexts, and experiences of stigma. We need a rich array of empirical studies from which to derive principles and lessons. In this study, we focus on 35 queer-identifying individuals in Mumbai, India, exploring the intersection of their queerness with mental health disclosures on social media.

Indeed, queer individuals in India often grapple with intersecting stigmas, facing mental health challenges (Namboodiri et al., 2019; Wandrekar & Nigudkar, 2020), alongside societal stigmas related to their sexual and gender expressions (Banik et al., 2019; Birnholtz et al., 2020). Saraff and colleagues (2022) found that LGBTQ+ people in India experience social rejection and stigma, which can impact their physical, psychological, and sexual health. In addition, same-sex relations were criminalized through Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code until 2018, and in 2023, India’s Supreme Court ruled against the legalization of same-sex marriage (Pandey, 2023). Thus, through this case study, we aim to better understand how people facing intersecting stigmas navigate decisions around disclosure and develop strategies for managing their identities in this socio-cultural landscape.

Literature Review

Intersectional Stigma

Stigma is commonly defined as “an attribute that is deeply discrediting” (Goffman, 1963; p. 12). Having a stigmatized identity can significantly influence various life outcomes, including psychological health, employment opportunities, housing stability, and overall quality of life (Link & Phelan, 2014). Despite the marginalizing and isolating effects of a stigmatized identity, Goffman’s (1963) conceptualization does not view stigma as an intrinsic attribute of an individual. Rather, stigma is considered relationally as part of a system of social norms such that people’s experiences vary depending on culture, context, and intersectional identities (Feingold, 2021).

Recent evidence suggests that stigma can be amplified in complex ways for individuals with multiple marginalized identities, driving a research focus on intersectional stigma (Chambers & Toller Erausquin, 2015; Pyle et al., 2021; Turan et al., 2019). This concept is grounded in intersectionality, a framework describing the interlocking systems of oppression that complicate our understanding of individuals’ experiences (Crenshaw, 1989). Intersectionality reveals how various forms of socially embedded discrimination, such as racism, sexism, and classism, intersect to create unique challenges for those with multiple marginalized identities (Collins, 2000). Thus, intersectional stigma is defined as the compounding effects of stigma across various dimensions of identity and inequality (Azhar & Gunn, 2021). For example, a study of older Black women with HIV showed how intersecting factors like age, race, and HIV status led to unique forms of stigma, such as familial rejection and biased medical treatments based on assumptions about their promiscuity and sexuality (Sangaramoorthy et al., 2017).

While most research on stigma and disclosure has focused on individuals with one stigma, the above-mentioned studies of intersecting stigmas suggest that these intersections might affect the disclosure process in important ways (Camacho et al., 2020; Lanthier et al., 2023; Pyle et al., 2021). For example, Davis (2018) discusses how revealing one’s sexuality can be more challenging for racialized minorities, whose bodies are already hypervisible and perceived as non-normative. McDonald et al. (2020) argue that multiple differences intersect to shape people’s experiences with disclosure, influenced by individual, relational, organizational, political, and cultural structures. They discuss how an HIV-positive, gay, undocumented man negotiates various stigmas, noting that “one or more of these forms of difference may feel more oppressive because the potential negative consequences of their disclosures differ” (p. 92).

The effects of these stigmas on disclosure are also highly context-dependent. For instance, disclosing an undocumented status might be more acceptable to family and friends than in institutional settings that might report it (Cisneros & Bracho, 2019). People strategically reveal or conceal their stigma to minimize social marginalization and isolation (Azhar & Gunn, 2021). Therefore, it is crucial to explore how individuals with intersecting stigmas disclose information online to update our understanding to account for their experiences.

Benefits and Risks of Sensitive Disclosure

Benefits

Goffman (1963) posits that disclosing a stigma can enable individuals to find “sympathetic others who are ready to adopt his standpoint in the world and to share with him the feeling that he is human and ‘essentially’ normal . . .” (p. 31). Indeed, online sensitive disclosures can be beneficial in finding community and connection. For example, Newman et al. (2011) found that sharing weight loss and diabetes struggles in Facebook groups provided emotional support, advice, motivation, and accountability. Similarly, Pyle et al. (2023) showed that college applicants disclosing their first-generation, low-income status on platforms like Instagram, Reddit, and Discord received support that enhanced their success in higher education.

For individuals facing multiple, intersecting sources of stigma, disclosure can be particularly beneficial for community formation and for counteracting and resisting their stigmas. Haimson et al. (2021) explained how trans people of color, lacking support compared to their white counterparts, aimed to build an intersectional supportive online space within a sub-community of Tumblr. Furthermore, Bailey (2021) described how social media platforms can be used to address the intersectional stigma and harassment faced by Black women, noting that they “Create their own networks to affirm one another, challenge unjust policies, and create the kinds of stories they wish were in the media, as well as transform the misogynoir¹ they experience by remixing it or creating something new entirely” (p. 29).

Risks

Disclosing on social media can also exacerbate vulnerability, especially if sensitive, potentially stigmatizing information reaches unintended audiences (DeVito, 2022). While people are generally aware of their audience in face-to-face disclosures, this is not necessarily true online. Litt (2012) describes the “imagined audience” as a person’s conceptualization of who they think comprises their audience for a given online post. However, one’s imagined audience may not align with who sees the post, due to platform algorithms and privacy features that can be confusing and may affect people’s accuracy in anticipating the size and composition of their actual audience (Eslami et al., 2015; Marwick & boyd, 2011).

This uncertainty about one’s audience can increase the risk of online harassment, defined as the offensive behaviors enabled by technology platforms, including insults, public shaming, and cyberstalking (Ahlgrim & Terrance, 2021; Uttarapong et al., 2021). Evidence suggests that queer people and other marginalized groups are more likely targets of online harassment due to societal stigmas (Haimson et al., 2021), and this harassment negatively influences their health and well-being (Wohn & Freeman, 2020). While platforms can mitigate this risk through community guidelines and enforcement mechanisms like content moderation and banning harassers, users often find these measures inadequate in preventing negative outcomes (Gillespie, 2018). LGBTQ+ people, in particular, frequently report uneven moderation, believing their content is more likely to be removed (Haimson et al., 2021). Dias Oliva et al. (2021) found that platform moderation tools often “suppress legitimate content from LGBTQ + people” (p. 729), as these tools fail to account for social context when assessing toxicity, disproportionately flagging LGBTQ+ content as harmful. Consequently, disclosure is risky as both audience and platform response and support can seem erratic and uncertain.

We know relatively little about which aspects of platforms make people feel safe or unsafe when disclosing sensitive information. DeVito (2021) introduced the concept of platform spirit, defined as:

the user’s perception of what a platform is and what it is for, as determined by the user’s understanding of the platform’s stated mission, its values and actions in practice over time, and the functionality which it allows as juxtaposed with the user’s understanding of the platform’s purpose. (p. 18)

Platform spirit can affect whether people feel supported on a platform and how they interpret the actions of those platforms. For example, Mayworm et al. (2024) found that marginalized social media users perceive platforms negatively when their experiences of harassment and abuse contradict the platform’s stated mission of inclusivity and safety. DeVito (2022) examined how transfeminine creators on TikTok perceived platforms as unsupportive in addressing transmisogynistic hate speech. In these cases, people perceived platforms as unsupportive and unsafe, fostering a negative view of platform spirit. While platform spirit has not been considered in understanding sensitive disclosure of stigmatizing information, we believe it could be an important explanatory factor.

We have so far seen how those with intersecting stigmas may face distinct and heightened risks due to the compounded nature of their marginalization. They must navigate overlapping layers of stigma, making their experiences fundamentally different from those with a single stigmatized identity, and do so in a platform environment that they do not always perceive as supporting people with identities like theirs. We thus aim to explore how intersectional stigma shapes the perceived benefits and risks of disclosing on social media.

RQ1: What are the perceived benefits and risks of disclosing on social media for people with intersecting stigmas?

Disclosure Strategies

When people decide to disclose, they must also determine how to do so. Not all disclosures are identical, and past work has uncovered several distinct disclosure strategies. One key distinction is between direct and indirect disclosure. Direct disclosure involves explicitly communicating unambiguous, personal information about oneself to others (Andalibi et al., 2018). People may be very explicit in their disclosures, such as coming out in a social media post by stating, “I’m gay” (Pinch et al., 2024). Direct disclosures can help avoid misunderstandings. For example, trans users of dating apps may prefer direct disclosures of their trans status to reduce the risk of harassment when meeting others in-person (Fernandez & Birnholtz, 2019). Direct disclosures have also been found to be important in reducing stigma and fostering understanding and acceptance (Andalibi & Forte, 2018).

Indirect disclosure involves sharing ambiguous information that hints at the intended message but does not state it directly and may allow for multiple interpretations by those who view it (Andalibi et al., 2018). This type of disclosure allows individuals to communicate while limiting personal risk (Spears & Postmes, 2015). Indirect disclosure is common on social media, where people are often selective about who they want to reveal information to (Carrasco & Kerne, 2018).

One type of indirect disclosure is what Marwick and boyd (2011) call “social steganography,” whereby people post vague or cryptic information understandable only to “in-the-know” audiences. Another method is visibly associating oneself with a sensitive identity by deliberately liking or sharing related content in ways others are likely to see, such as in the study by Andalibi et al. (2018), where participants liked and shared others’ content about pregnancy loss instead of disclosing their own experiences. This helped them avoid judgment and gauge their audience’s reaction to the stigma. For many people, the aggregation of their online behaviors, such as likes, shares, and other behavior over time, is what contributes to both impression formation and their self-presentation strategy (Birnholtz & Macapagal, 2021; Das & Hodkinson, 2020; Pinch et al., 2024). Online disclosure strategies are underexplored for those experiencing intersecting stigmas, and thus, our second research question is:

RQ2: What strategies do people with intersecting stigmas use to disclose?

Research Context

In this study, we focus on queer individuals in India and their disclosures about mental health, which we conceptualize as participants’ perception and articulation of their emotional, psychological, and social well-being (Keyes, 2006).² Social media platforms have emerged as significant spaces for people to engage with mental health content, access self-help resources, and seek professional guidance (Milton et al., 2023; Naslund et al., 2019). Platforms can allow individuals to share their own mental health experiences and aid in fostering a sense of community and connection among those openly discussing mental health (Pendse et al., 2019; Pretorius et al., 2022; Rains & Wright, 2016). At the same time, like other sensitive disclosures, sharing about mental health can be risky, potentially leading to rejection and harassment (Griffith & Stein, 2021; Ostendorf et al., 2020), thereby complicating the decision to disclose.

Mumbai, India, offers a compelling case for this study, as it represents a socially conservative society while also hosting a strong progressive community, particularly among youth (Shahani, 2020). This juxtaposition brings the tensions surrounding disclosure into sharp relief. Chatterjee (2018) argues that in India, cis-heterosexual marriage is a dominant socialization goal, which can exacerbate prejudice and overt discrimination against alternative genders and sexualities, creating a challenging environment for queer individuals. Moreover, prevailing understandings of sexuality and gender roles reinforce the notion that a man’s value lies in reproduction, and women are stripped of sexual agency and desires (Dey, 2019; Srivastava, 2001).

In addition, online harassment is often more severe in non-Western contexts like India, where people frequently report ineffective platform governance, further intensifying tensions around disclosure (Moitra et al., 2021; Nova et al., 2021; Pinch et al., 2022; Sambasivan et al., 2019; Schoenebeck et al., 2023). Experiences of harassment and discrimination are likely to co-occur with symptoms of mental health conditions (Plöderl & Tremblay, 2015) and can exacerbate mental health problems (Berger & Sarnyai, 2015).

India has a collectivist orientation, meaning individuals may define themselves more in relation to their community, which could also complicate disclosure dynamics (Greeff, 2013; White, 2017). Family ties are deeply entrenched, and family can be a significant source of stigma surrounding mental health issues, which can thereby impact disclosure (Abdullah & Brown, 2011; Charles et al., 2007; Mahomed et al., 2019). Throughout our study, we attend to these cultural and platform dynamics and how they may impact disclosure.

Methods

Participants

Working with a queer community organization, we recruited participants through social media, dating apps (on which recruiters reached out to potential participants with study information),³ local influencers, and advertisements on LGBTQ+ groups and pages. We recruited broadly, cognizant of the potential bias stemming from the predominance of Hindu, upper-caste, gay men in many queer spaces in India (Shahani, 2020). Specifically, we aimed for representation across gender identities to mitigate overrepresentation of dominant groups and to help ensure a more inclusive sample that would better reflect the diversity within Mumbai’s queer community (see Table 1 for demographics).

Table 1.

Demographics (N = 35).

Demographics		Count (n)
Age	18–24 years 25–34 years 35–45 years	10 (29%) 18 (51%) 7 (20%)
Gender identity	Cis-gender man Cis-gender woman Non-binary/agender Transgender man Transgender woman/Hijra/Kinnar^a	9 (26%) 7 (20%) 7 (20%) 6 (17%) 6 (17%)
Sexual identity	Bisexual Gay Lesbian Pansexual Queer Other^b	5 (14%) 9 (26%) 5 (14%) 2 (6%) 4 (11%) 10 (29%)
Outness	Out to all Out to some	19 (54%) 16 (46%)
Education	Completed 10^th std (high school)	2 (6%)
	Completed 12^th std (higher secondary school)	5 (14%)
	Graduate degree	15 (43%)
	Postgraduate degree or higher	13 (37%)
Monthly income	<10,000 INR^c 10,000–30,000 INR 30,000–50,000 INR >50,000 INR No response	9 (26%) 14 (40%) 7 (20%) 4 (11%) 1 (3%)
Social media platform use	Instagram^d Facebook WhatsApp Twitter/X Snapchat	34 (97%) 29 (83%) 19 (54%) 9 (26%) 6 (17%)

Hijra/Kinnar are terms used in the Indian subcontinent to identify intersex, eunuchs, and transsexual men (Johari, 2014).

Participants were asked to self-identify on our pre-survey in a free-text field, in which some did not differentiate between gender/sexual identity. Nine people identified as transgender for their sexual identity, and 1 as bisexual.

INR indicates Indian Rupees. As of July 2024, 10,000 INR = 119 US dollars.

It is worth noting that throughout interviews, participants typically focused on their Instagram use, as this was the predominant platform discussed.

To be eligible for the study, participants had to (1) be at least 18 years old, (2) identify as part of the queer community, (3) live in Mumbai, and (4) use social media platforms and have posted content in the past month.⁴

Procedure

Interviews were conducted between October 2022 and May 2023 at a local community-based organization focused on LGBTQ+ advocacy, health, and research. Most interviews were in-person (n = 24); however, we offered an audio/video call option (n = 11) in case an in-person interview was uncomfortable or difficult. Prior to the interview, participants filled out a brief online questionnaire to provide demographic information and confirm that they met the study’s eligibility criteria.

All interviews were one-on-one, conducted by members of our research team who live in Mumbai and could interview in Hindi, Marathi, and/or English, as participants preferred. Interviewers were trained by the organization’s mental health specialist to navigate conversations on sensitive topics and were equipped with mental health resources for participants who sought support. Before starting each interview, interviewers told participants they could decide not to answer any question or to discontinue the interview. The interviewer then went over any remaining questions participants had. A semi-structured interview guide allowed the interviewer to adapt the conversation’s flow based on participants’ replies.

The interview guide covered several key areas, including social media usage, identity disclosure offline and on social media, participants’ understanding and conceptualization of mental health, their experiences discussing mental health, and the influence of stigma and cultural factors. For this study, the most relevant questions centered on participants’ motivations for posting about mental health, their goals in sharing these posts, and the concerns or hesitations they had when discussing mental health online. Importantly, these questions also probed how their online experiences related to offline anxieties and intersected with their LGBTQ+ identity. After the interview, participants received 700 rupees (~$8.50 USD) as compensation, an amount consistent with prior work in this context and approved by a local institutional review board.

Qualitative methods were chosen for this study because these topics—particularly the intersection of mental health, LGBTQ+ identities, and stigma—are underexplored, and we sought to capture the nuance of participants’ lived experiences. This approach also allowed for the emergence of unexpected themes. Qualitative methods offer the flexibility to explore these themes in depth and to better understand sensitive, intersecting issues.

Analysis

Interview recordings were transcribed, translated to English, and checked by the interviewers for accuracy. We removed any mentions of proper names from transcripts to protect participant privacy, and pseudonyms were assigned to participants which we use in reporting results below. We uploaded all transcripts to Dedoose, a computer-assisted coding software package, which was used for thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2012). During this phase, the first author, who is U.S.-based, traveled to Mumbai to work with the local team on the coding scheme.

Five of the authors coded the interviews, meeting to resolve any disagreements and help ensure mutual understanding of the codes. We also held discussions around the meaning of certain terms to help minimize cultural misunderstandings and misinterpretations of the interviews. Once all interviews were coded, the first author organized the findings based on the research questions.

Findings

Reputational Risks and Willingness to Disclose

In analyzing the data and attempting to answer our first research question, it became clear that participants perceived several reputational risks associated with mental health disclosures, not just on social media but also in conversations with family, community members, and therapists. We identified two primary reputational risks that influenced participants’ willingness to disclose: the risk of further pathologization and the risk of damaging their social status and familial reputation. We discuss these risks below, as they seemed to significantly impact participants’ overall willingness to disclose and their strategies for doing so. Understanding these broader concerns is essential before examining the perceived benefits and risks of social media disclosure.

Risk of Further Pathologization

Participants were cautious about disclosing their mental health status due to concerns about being further pathologized. Many already felt that their sexual/gender identities were perceived as illnesses by the people around them. Sahil explained that society views gay people like him as “sick,” labeling him an “unnatural product.” Another participant, Adhira, shared, “There are people in my family that I was once telling about my friend who is gay and they were like, ‘It’s a disease, this is something not normal and they should get treated.’” Participants feared that disclosing mental health difficulties would lead to their sexual/gender identity being blamed, further pathologizing them and amplifying others’ perceptions of their “sickness.” This concern was seemingly a direct result of the intersectionality of their stigmas: participants worried that others would see their sexual/gender identity and mental health as interconnected pathologies. They did not want to be at this intersection, which impacted their willingness to disclose.

Participants shared experiences of family members, community members, and even mental health professionals attributing their mental health challenges to their sexual/gender identity. Divya, for instance, explained why she does not disclose her mental health issues to her family: “I do not trust my family because they ultimately blame me for everything and say things like, ‘You are trans, so these things happen.’” Viral echoed this sentiment about therapists, stating, “Either they don’t understand, or they medicalize the issue. They ask whether your [mental health] problem is related to your sexuality.” Aanya feared expressing her mental health concerns to her family, as it may exacerbate her family’s attempts to “correct” her bisexual identity. She described: “I am just afraid . . . they [my family] might take me to conversion therapy, or they might make me feel ashamed of myself or my sexuality.” While India banned conversion therapy in 2022, evidence suggests that it continues through various methods and practitioners evade criminalization (Shaji, 2023).

Navigating disclosure was a delicate balance given the ways in which queerness and mental health intersect. Priya stated: “you do face [mental health] problems because of your sexuality . . . You don’t want to face them. You just want to be as free as another heterosexual man out there, but you can’t.” In other words, mental health issues are caused, in part, by societal marginalization of the queer community, which exposes them to distinct challenges. Thus, participants do see queerness and mental health as connected, but they resist the pathological connotations imposed by others.

Risk of Damaging Social Status and Familial Reputation

Participants described how disclosure of mental health issues could hurt their social status as others may perceive them as crazy or weak. Jyoti feared that if they disclosed about mental health, they would be labeled in a derogatory way: “they’ll be like, you’re crazy and you’re this and that, so you don’t want to have those tags on you.” Devish explained that he did not want to disclose for “fear of [being] labeled . . . weak.” He emphasized: “I didn’t want to tell this [mental health challenges] to anyone. Whatever I am, I am not weak.” This reflects a common cultural belief in this context that values rationality and strength. Failure to embody these traits can mean being looked down upon or even ostracized by others, which can diminish people’s opportunities.

Participants’ worries about disclosure also reflected a cultural tenet that social status is held not just by individuals but collectively by their families. As such, participants said that disclosure of mental health could reflect poorly on, and adversely affect the social standing of, their whole families. The marriage prospects of children are of central importance to many Indian families (Bhandari, 2018), and disclosing mental health issues was often seen as harming those prospects. Thus, many participants felt pressures to hide mental health challenges that might be perceived as a deficiency. Aanya explained:

If a child is diagnosed with something, let’s say it is something as common as depression . . . family will try to hide it because then people will think wrong about their family . . . this is something that I have heard personally from my family that, “don’t tell anyone that you are going through all of these things because, you know, then no one will be ready to marry you.” . . . [there’s this] social pressure of just being and feeling okay.

Disclosure could make other people “think wrong about their family,” leading participants to believe their mental health struggles should remain concealed.

Benefits/Risks of Disclosure on Social Media

Given the reputational risks identified earlier, participants were understandably cautious about disclosing mental health concerns on social media. Yet despite risks of pathologization and harm to individual and family status, social media also offered a space where these risks might be mitigated. In answering RQ1, we will first explore the benefits of social media disclosure, including its role in communal well-being and advocacy, and then examine the perceived risks, such as audience harassment and inadequate platform support.

Benefits: Communal Well-Being and Advocacy

Participants perceived collective benefits in disclosure, such as enhancing communal well-being and influencing societal conversations. This occurred in three significant ways. First, participants shared resources to improve mental health generally; second, they shared queer-specific resources and support that were not widely available; and third, they provided information about mental health and queerness to combat common misconceptions.

First, participants shared general mental health resources and advice. For instance, Viral recounted: “During lockdown I used to make Reels⁵ about how to keep good mental health because during pandemic many people were undergoing mental health problems and they had bad mental health.” He emphasized the importance of fostering a sense of solidarity, stating that people will “feel that they are not alone . . . you also feel that someone is also there who has experienced this emotion.” Pari more explicitly highlighted her aspiration for people to reach out for help after seeing her content: “People will get to know that they are not alone, and many people are with them who are going through the same phase. So at least they will come ahead to ask for help.”

Second, social media became a place to share and learn about queer-specific mental health resources that were not widely available. This was evidenced both in what participants said they shared, as well as in what they found valuable in disclosures from others. Mrinal, for example, turned to social media to find queer-affirming therapists, relying on recommendations from others in the queer community. They explained: “I did find my therapist on Instagram. So this one person I follow . . . she had asked people who she follows to put up good therapists . . . That’s how I found my therapist.” Anupam similarly appreciated resources they found on Instagram: “There are many trans in India who create many resources . . . There are people who have links in their bio and lists of queer-inclusive therapists or queer-informed therapists, gynecologists who are trans-affirmative [and] who understand trans people.” This sharing of resources sometimes extended beyond social media platforms to offer tangible assistance to the queer community. Ayaan described how he posted to connect with others and provide people with resources: “So on my WhatsApp or Instagram I make such posts that whoever needs any help, they can call [me on] this number, I will give them complete information. So this is for all the trans family, and LGBT family.” Thus, consideration for fellow community members and the resources they might need was an important potential benefit in sharing about mental health.

Third, participants shared information about mental health and queerness to combat common misconceptions and attempt to shift larger societal conversations. For Priya, the stigma around mental health was a motivator to post, and these posts were a way to break down barriers surrounding mental health discussions. She explained: “I also feel it helps break stigma because it just helps people get aware . . .” Participants also aimed to post to reduce the pathologization of queer identities, which in turn helps to prevent the further pathologization of mental health issues. Mrinal said he wants to raise “awareness about different identities, the importance of using proper pronouns . . . I think this helps in normalizing it.” Pari expressed that it is important to post to challenge dominant perceptions of queer people being considered abnormal:

I would like to provide knowledge to people about LGBTQ because many people still don’t know what LGBTQ community is . . . I would like to give them knowledge so that if they look at us then they should have a normal perception for us and not look at us in an uncomfortable way.

Posting at the intersection of mental health and queerness can both support the queer community and educate others. Rajan wanted to share on social media to normalize conversations around mental health and queerness, recognizing the lack of awareness during his own youth: “When I was growing up and I was a young adult I did not know it’s okay to have these conversations.” Aanya, who we described earlier as unwilling to disclose to her family, did make posts on social media to “raise awareness” and had “shared a lot of posts related to queer mental health.” Ultimately, she said, “Being a part of community brings in the activism, you know you can rarely be apolitical and queer together because your life itself becomes politics.”

Risks: Audience Harassment and Lack of Platform Support

While participants recognized clear benefits to mental health disclosures, they also perceived risks, often rooted in their past experiences with disclosing their queerness. While many platforms overtly claim to support their diverse user bases (e.g., Meta Community Guidelines, 2024), several participants reported negative experiences with past disclosures, such as audience harassment and inadequate platform support, leading them to view social media platforms as unsafe or unsupportive. A predominant risk of disclosure was audience harassment, with participants noting that platforms often failed to enforce their own guidelines against such behavior. Negative or harassing comments on participants’ posts were described as common, and many felt that platforms responded inadequately, if at all, to these interactions. Jiya explained: “I got my medical transitioning last year and had a small fundraising campaign. To amplify my fundraiser, I put it on my Instagram, and people from across borders were coming and posting hateful comments in my section. It was really tough.” Reporting these comments as potential community guideline violations was discouraging, as Jiya said Instagram mostly did not take action: “If you are reporting 5–6 comments, and out of that, on one comment they take action, then I won’t say that they helped.” Frustrated by the lack of support and negative interactions, Jiya ultimately deleted Instagram for a few months.

Indeed, when platforms did not moderate content in the ways participants believed they should, they took a negative view of the platform. Anupam recounted reporting comments to Instagram that mocked them for posting about mental health, but the comments were not removed. In reflecting on their disclosure experiences on Instagram, Anupam believes platforms are likely to unevenly moderate queer content:

I think the community guidelines on Instagram are very bad for LGBTQ because if harassment and online bullying happens with queer people and if you report then Instagram doesn’t take any action. This happens intentionally . . . for example, if you write men are trash then your post will be deleted, your story will be deleted. Instagram will delete it but . . . if anybody abuses trans people and if you report then it doesn’t get deleted. So this discrimination is seen on Instagram . . . Instagram as a company is itself transphobic and queerphobic. They don’t like queer population.

While Dias Oliva et al. (2021) and Haimson et al. (2021) found that LGBTQ+ content is often unfairly removed, participants in our study also perceived a lack of moderation when it came to hate speech directed at LGBTQ+ individuals. Some participants felt that platforms were ultimately not operated by people who understood their perspective or the challenges they faced from their stigmas. Jyoti suggested, “I’d change the owners. We should find new LGBT owners . . . at least put them in positions where they can make it very accessible for people of the community.” Aanya criticized Instagram’s superficial inclusivity efforts, stating,

Just adding pronouns is not helpful . . . They [should] make stricter policies where homophobia and trans negativity are included . . . people’s nipples showing is something that violates your community guidelines, but someone spreading hate all over someone’s post is not, so [Instagram’s] community guidelines need to be updated.

In addition, the safety tools provided by the platforms were easily circumvented, further increasing the risks associated with disclosure. Divya, who disclosed her experiences as a trans cricket player on social media, emphasized the hate and harassment she received after posting. One person persistently harassed her, repeatedly telling her, “You are born as a man, so you will always be a man,” which caused her mental health to “deteriorate.” The harassment escalated: “I used to feel unsafe while going out of my house . . . [he would] message me from different profiles . . . I used to block him every time, and he would create a new account.”

Features such as blocking the harassing users from seeing her content were inadequate in stopping the harassment, ultimately leading her to file a complaint with the local police. As a result, Divya explained, “This is why I have made my profiles private and restricted comments to followers only . . . Even if we report hate speech, these things don’t go against the policies.” Divya reflected:

If you will ask all the trans women, they will give you an example of a post that went viral after someone shared it in a homophobic group. I used to keep receiving unlimited comments, posts were created, I kept receiving weird messages from there, so that is very challenging. I used to defend myself . . . but they used to go on and on. So, at last, either we used to delete that post or used to lock the profile.

Ultimately, participants’ decisions about future disclosures were influenced by their experiences with the platform, particularly how supportive the audience and platform had been in relation to past disclosures. The perceived lack of effective moderation and the ease with which safety tools could be bypassed left many feeling unsafe and discouraged them from sharing their mental health struggles online.

Strategies to Navigate Disclosure on Social Media

RQ2 asked about the strategies used to navigate disclosure on social media. Given the risks of audience harassment and lack of platform support, many participants opted to disclose indirectly. They did so by sharing content from others, often on their stories, which could raise awareness and contribute to important conversations without exposing themselves to the risks of direct disclosure. When directly disclosing, participants mentioned limiting their audience to avoid negative responses. In addition, participants developed strategies to collectively work to improve the platform environment, making it more supportive for future disclosures.

Indirect Disclosures and Limiting Audience

As mentioned earlier, people wanted to share general mental health resources and support, specifically for the queer community, but avoid the risks of direct personal disclosure. One way of doing so was to disclose indirectly, such as by posting general information or reposting others’ content. Jyoti noted, “I might have posted about mental health. Not my own mental health but general posts.” They mentioned sharing content from a clinical psychologist they followed, including “her articles, her posts, her reels on Instagram . . . people can follow her profile to, you know, learn and just research about it.” This aligns with the discussion by Andalibi et al. (2018) on indirect disclosure strategies, as the content is created by others and shared, without revealing any direct personal experience or reason for posting.

Jiya, as discussed in the previous section, experienced hate and harassment after posting about her medical transitioning surgery. She now finds indirect disclosure necessary and is much more cautious with her disclosures. She explained, “I don’t want any of my posts and videos and Reels [to go] viral.” Instead, she shares mental health information on her story or directly sends resources to friends over chat, saying, “I follow a few pages that [talk] about mental health . . . I share their posts in my story. I share their posts with my friends on chat . . . if I keep getting such content, then I will continue reposting. And I will keep spreading it.” Ephemeral posts, such as social media stories, were a convenient avenue for this, as they allowed participants to share others’ posts, and would only be on their profile for a short period of time.

Some participants did mention making direct disclosures, but typically only to a limited audience. While Aanya wanted to post to all her platform contacts about her own mental health, she felt constrained by the prevailing societal stigma and norms. She instead posted to a smaller audience to avoid negative responses to her disclosure:

I would like to post about my own mental health at some point in time, and I have just done it once. But again, on a smaller group where I know that people are going to respond in a good way, I wish that the stigma is less that, you know, I can post it on a bigger group . . . I think India is lacking, lagging too much when it comes to LGBTQIA people existing.

Given fears about their mental health disclosures further pathologizing them, and past experiences with disclosure that led to harassment, indirect disclosure and tactics to limit their audience were seen as necessary. Such strategies allowed participants to balance advocacy and community with self-protection.

Collective Action and Reporting

Emergent in our findings were the ways participants tried make the environment safer for themselves and others to disclose. The risks around audience harassment and inadequate platform support led participants to view social media platforms negatively, doubting their ability to adequately address commonly mentioned safety concerns. In response, participants took it upon themselves to improve the platform environment by collectively pushing platforms for better moderation practices and providing mutual support to other people with intersecting stigmas.

Chanda, for example, does not believe Instagram will respond to content only reported by one user, so she tried to leverage her network to draw more attention to problematic comments. She explained: “A lot of times on Instagram, unless 100 people report, they don’t take action.” When somebody posts an offensive comment on one of her posts, Chanda shares screenshots of the comment and encourages others to report it to Instagram as well: “I try to put it on my story and forward [the screenshot] to everybody . . . they can also report. So I feel that nothing happens if only one person takes [a] step . . . So I try to mention it on my stories and if possible create a post to mention it. And I personally DM everybody and tell them.” In this case, Chanda actively created support among her followers, potentially influencing the response of the platform.

These collective approaches attempt to create a space where individuals feel more at ease to disclose. Arjun highlighted the importance of collective support within the queer community, intervening when he observed hate directed toward trans individuals. Expressing his solidarity, he remarked,

If it’s about our trans brothers or sisters . . . I feel upset and I comment for them . . . you don’t have any right to say anything against them or bully them or speak filth about them . . . I comment on such posts if someone is bullying them.

Participants were acutely aware of how intersecting stigmas could lead to severe harassment, which heightened their sense of solidarity and support for one another. Jiya, for example, described how she supported a friend:

A friend of mine who identifies as trans posted about their mental health and how they are struggling with gender dysphoria and all this stress . . . along with how they have to dress in their household because their family is not accepting . . . I felt that I should message them personally and reply to that story . . . I felt that he definitely needed some love [and] affirmation which I can provide.

This personal outreach was a way of offering support, particularly given the awareness among participants that such disclosures would likely encounter hate.

Discussion

In this study, we sought to better understand disclosure among individuals with intersecting stigmas, specifically focusing on queer-identifying individuals in Mumbai, India, and how they navigate mental health disclosures on social media. We examined the reputational risks impacting their overall willingness to disclose, the benefits and risks of disclosure on social media, and the strategies around disclosure. With an eye toward extending frameworks for sensitive disclosure, we suggest three key factors that emerged as important throughout our findings: socio-cultural factors and willingness to disclose, perceived benefits of disclosure, and platform experience and platform spirit. Examining these elements through the lens of individuals with intersecting stigmas highlights unique challenges and considerations in the disclosure process. In discussing these three insights, we suggest how each one could further enhance frameworks for sensitive disclosure.

Socio-Cultural Factors and Willingness to Disclose

First, the perceived risk of disclosure can be amplified by intersecting sources of stigma, making individuals particularly wary of disclosing at all. In our study, disclosures of mental health struggles are entangled with societal heteronormativity, which portrays queer identities as abnormal and in need of treatment. Participants expressed concerns that their family and/or community members would view their sexual/gender identity and mental health issues as interconnected pathologies. Indeed, Dey (2019) emphasizes how, “The colonial era law of Section 377 only strengthened the conversation surrounding the non-natural status of the LGBTQ community” (p. 9). Although India decriminalized same-sex relations in 2018, the lingering effects of this legal and cultural history continue to mark LGBTQ+ individuals as “non-natural.” This perception impacted participants’ willingness to disclose, as they did not want to be positioned at this stigmatized intersection.

We also found that willingness to disclose can be impacted by familial pressures. Other studies have pointed to the centrality of the family in Indian culture, indicating that what might appear to be individual decisions are influenced by familial dynamics (Chadda & Deb, 2013; Chandra et al., 2003). Participants reflected on the broader implications of their disclosures, recognizing the potential impact on their family’s reputation. In contexts where individuals may define themselves more in relation to their community, the ramifications of disclosure may extend beyond the individual, making people less willing to disclose.

While participants in our study faced risks of pathologization and damage to their familial or social status, these risks may vary in other contexts. The key point is that a more complete understanding of disclosure requires examining how stigmas intersect within individuals’ socio-cultural environments, as this may significantly influence their willingness to disclose. Traditional frameworks that analyze disclosures in isolation or solely on social media may overlook important considerations influencing disclosure decisions.

Thus, a core contribution of our study is to promote the incorporation of socio-cultural contextual elements into existing disclosure frameworks. For instance, Andalibi and Forte’s (2018) sensitive disclosure decision-making framework—which accounts for self, audience, network, societal, temporal, and platform factors—could be expanded to include “socio-cultural factors.” This addition would center offline contextual considerations that impact disclosure, providing a more holistic view of how individuals make disclosure decisions.

Perceived Benefits of Disclosure

While stigma may reduce one’s willingness to disclose in the ways described earlier, it can also heighten awareness of the benefits and necessity of disclosure. We found that social media platforms were spaces for people to share and gain community support and resources, particularly at the intersection of queerness and mental health. While disclosure processes are often perceived as being motivated by self-oriented functions, ranging from relationship development to self-expression (Derlega & Grzelak, 1979; Luo & Hancock, 2020)—our participants emphasized the communal benefits of disclosure.

This resonates with Andalibi’s (2019) discussion of the diverse outcomes of disclosure. While there are individual-level outcomes, such as feeling supported and connecting with similar others, disclosure can also lead to broader social outcomes, including destigmatizing certain topics. Yet Andalibi et al. (2018) point out that “disclosures guided by societal factors need to be direct to be effective” (p. 15). Contrary to this, our findings suggest that participants used indirect disclosures to address societal stigma and shared support and resources within the community, particularly at the intersection of queerness and mental health. In environments where resources for those with stigmatized identities are scarce, even indirect disclosure can yield substantial perceived benefits, fostering a sense of communal well-being.

Many participants felt a responsibility to share information and offer support to others facing similar challenges, positioning disclosure as an act of collective care. This aligns with the findings of Pyle et al. (2021), which suggest that individuals with intersecting stigmas often feel an increased sense of responsibility to disclose information that could help others navigate shared challenges. Ultimately, when evaluating the outcomes of disclosure, particularly for those with intersecting stigmas, it is crucial to acknowledge community-level impacts. Whether direct or indirect, disclosure can significantly assist others within the same identity group by providing access to resources and support.

Platform Experience and Platform Spirit

Third, prior experiences with disclosing stigma on particular social platforms can affect the perceived safety of disclosing on those platforms and influence the strategies used. Participants recounted instances where inadequate platform moderation and the prevalence of hostile comments deterred them from future disclosures. Indeed, perceptions of past system performance can impact trust in the system more broadly (Yu et al., 2017). Experiences from one disclosure can influence subsequent disclosures, and the quality of platform response and support can impact disclosure behaviors.

Participants perceived social media platforms as hostile environments, rampant with audience hate and inadequate moderation. This negative sense of platform spirit discouraged them from sharing personal experiences widely, leading them to adopt indirect disclosure strategies instead. For example, they often shared general information via Instagram stories, leveraging the temporality of content to manage disclosures more flexibly (Birnholtz & Macapagal, 2021; Pinch et al., 2024). Furthermore, while Andalibi et al. (2018) identified self, audience, platform, and temporal motivations for indirect disclosure, past negative experiences with the platform and inadequate moderation also emerged as significant factors driving users to either disclose indirectly or severely restrict their audience.

In some cases, participants reduced or limited their use of platforms, much like participants in the study by Mayworm et al. (2024) and in DeVito’s (2022) research. Yet while these studies focus on how platform spirit relates to folk theorization, we find participants’ views of platform spirit to be important in disclosure decisions. Moreover, as Pyle et al. (2023) point out, reducing platform use “may ultimately be undesired since they involve giving up the benefits that can be reaped through engagement with a platform” (p. 296). Given the communal benefits and resources discussed in the previous section, non-use can result in missing these benefits, underscoring the need for platforms to improve the experience for queer users.

In studying disclosure among those with intersecting stigmas, Pyle et al. (2021) found that LGBTQ+ individuals “face challenges in disclosing intersecting stigmatized experiences online” (p. 12), often anticipating stigma and negative audience reactions, which can lead to non-disclosure. We extend this work by identifying that these challenges can also stem from past disclosure experiences, which shape a perception of negative platform spirit. This is an outcome of this research not accounted for in prior frameworks. While Pyle et al. (2021) found that Andalibi and Forte’s (2018) sensitive disclosure decision-making framework explains disclosure among those with intersecting stigmas, we propose that our findings add an additional platform consideration. Although Andalibi and Forte (2018) account for platform factors, their focus is on the technical affordances platforms offer, rather than how past experiences and perceptions of platform spirit shape future disclosure decisions. By incorporating these aspects—platform experience and the perception of platform spirit—into platform factors, this framework can be refined to better address the complexities of disclosure, particularly for those navigating intersecting stigmas.

Despite negative past experiences and a negative view of platform spirit, some participants actively tried to create safer online spaces for themselves and others. Indeed, the presence of a safe and supportive environment is essential for facilitating disclosure. Participants shared general mental health information, offered support, and collectively reported hateful messages to try to improve the online environment for their community. We thus build on previous work on platform spirit (DeVito, 2021; DeVito, 2022 Mayworm et al., 2024), showing when people have a negative view of a platform’s spirit, they may collectively try to strategize to improve the platform environment, combating harassment and fostering a more supportive online environment. This approach aligns with research on online communities, where creators leverage networks to share tools, strategies, and emotional support in response to platform shortcomings (Meisner, 2023). While such efforts to retrofit a community moderation model onto a global moderation platform can create positive change and potentially make the environment more conducive to disclosure, they also highlight the need for structural reforms within platforms to alleviate the burden of content moderation on users (Uttarapong et al., 2021).

Limitations and Future Work

This study focused on interviews with 35 queer people residing in Mumbai. We intentionally sought diversity by recruiting broadly to include individuals with various sexual and gender orientations. As we noted earlier, fully understanding disclosure strategies for those with intersecting stigmas requires additional research in a range of cultural contexts and marginalized populations.

Our focus on mental health and queerness as intersecting stigmas might limit the generalizability of our findings to other forms of stigma. Stigmas that are not viewed as pathological or those that are based on perceptions of “poor choices” (e.g., being a criminal or drug user) might influence disclosure dynamics differently. Future research could explore how different types of stigmas, such as those viewed as resulting from personal choices or social circumstances, intersect and impact disclosure processes. Understanding these variations could further enhance disclosure frameworks.

While not directly related to intersectional stigma, future research could also explore how platform spirit varies across different social media platforms and how these variations impact disclosure behaviors. Various factors may emerge as important in shaping peoples’ perceptions of platform spirit such as changes in platform policies, shifts in community norms, and involvement in public controversies related to the platform or its parent company. Importantly, peoples’ experiences and perceptions of the same platform can vary widely depending on factors such as what or who they follow, their geographic location, the language of the content, and the resources dedicated to moderation and policy. While this study focused on centralized social media platforms, disclosure may play out differently on platforms with community moderators such as Reddit or platforms with federated protocols (Chandrasekharan et al., 2022; Ermoshina & Musiani, 2022).

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the staff at the Humsafar Trust for assistance with this work. The authors would also like to thank Elizabeth Li and Floor Fiers for feedback on an earlier version of this work.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The Sexualities Project at Northwestern University.

ORCID iDs

Annika Pinch

Jeremy Birnholtz

Notes

Author Biographies

Annika Pinch (MA, Northwestern University) is a PhD candidate in the Communication Studies department at Northwestern University. Her research interests include self-presentation and self-disclosure in online environments, with a particular focus on how people manage and resist stigma on social media.

Jeremy Birnholtz (PhD, University of Michigan) is a Professor in the Communication Studies and (by courtesy) Computer Science departments at Northwestern University. His research interests include online identity, LGBTQ+ social media, and self-presentation.

Jatin Chaudary (BDS, MPH, India Institute of Medical Sciences) is a senior research associate at the Humsafar Trust. He has implemented and monitored research studies and has worked with diverse sexual and gender minority communities, such as transgender individuals, sex workers, and people living with HIV.

Preeti Tripathi is a research assistant and counselor working at the Humsafar Trust. She is working on projects that aim to improve health care facilities in the community and wants to promote understanding, acceptance, and support within the health care system for marginalized communities.

Shruta Rawat (MSc, University of Sydney) is a researcher at the Humsafar Trust. Her research interests include HIV interventions for internet-using MSM and TGW, acceptability and outreach strategies for new HIV-prevention techniques such as PrEP, and HIV-prevention and risk-behavior reduction among MSM and TGW youth.

Alpana Dange (MPolSci, Jawaharlal Nehru University; MPhil, IIT Mumbai) is a researcher and strategic consultant at the Humsafar Trust. Her research interests include behavioral research among MSM and TGW, evaluations of HIV-prevention programs, social media usage and female sex workers, SOGIE-related bullying and harassment in educational institutions, and sexual and reproductive health.

Rachel Kornfield (PhD, University of Wisconsin-Madison) is an Assistant Professor of Preventive Medicine in Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine. Her research seeks to understand the role of digital technologies in mental health and to design and evaluate scalable digital tools that can support mental health self-management.

References

Abdullah

Brown

T. L.

(2011). Mental illness stigma and ethnocultural beliefs, values, and norms: An integrative review. Clinical Psychology Review, 31(6), 934–948. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2011.05.003

Ahlgrim

Terrance

(2021). Perceptions of cyberstalking: Impact of perpetrator gender and cyberstalker/victim relationship. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(7–8), NP4074–NP4093. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518784590

Andalibi

(2019). What happens after disclosing stigmatized experiences on identified social media: Individual, dyadic, and social/network outcomes. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1–15). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300367

Andalibi

Forte

(2018). Announcing pregnancy loss on Facebook: A decision-making framework for stigmatized disclosures on identified social network sites. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1–14). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173732

Andalibi

Morris

M. E.

Forte

(2018). Testing waters, sending clues: Indirect disclosures of socially stigmatized experiences on social media. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 2, Article 19. https://doi.org/10.1145/3274288

Andalibi

Ozturk

Forte

(2017). Sensitive self-disclosures, responses, and social support on Instagram: The case of #Depression. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work and social computing (pp. 1485–1500). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/2998181.2998243

Azhar

Gunn

A. J.

(2021). Navigating intersectional stigma: Strategies for coping among cisgender women of color. Qualitative Health Research, 31(12), 2194–2210. https://doi.org/10.1177/10497323211025249

Bailey

(2021). Misogynoir transformed: Black women’s digital resistance: Misogynoir transformed. New York University Press. https://doi.org/10.18574/nyu/9781479803392.001.0001

Banik

Dodge

Schmidt-Sane

Sivasubramanian

Bowling

Rawat

S. M.

Dange

Anand

(2019). Humanizing an invisible population in India: Voices from bisexual men concerning identity, life experiences, and sexual health. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 48(1), 305–316. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-018-1361-x

10.

Bazarova

N. N.

Choi

Y. H.

(2014). Self-disclosure in social media: Extending the functional approach to disclosure motivations and characteristics on social network sites 1. Journal of Communication, 64(4), 635–657. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12106

11.

Berger

Sarnyai

(2015). “More than skin deep”: Stress neurobiology and mental health consequences of racial discrimination. Stress, 18(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3109/10253890.2014.989204

12.

Bhandari

(2018). Makings of modern marriage: Choice, family, and the matchmakers. In Choukroune

Bhandari

(Eds.), Exploring Indian modernities: Ideas and practices (pp. 131–149). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-7557-5_7

13.

Birnholtz

Macapagal

(2021). “I don’t want to be known for that”:The role of temporality in online self-presentation of young gay and bisexual males. Computers in Human Behavior, 118, Article 106706. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106706

14.

Birnholtz

Rawat

Vashista

Baruah

Dange

Boyer

A.-M.

(2020). Layers of marginality: An exploration of visibility, impressions, and cultural context on geospatial apps for men who have sex with men in Mumbai, India. Social Media + Society, 6(2), Article 2091399. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120913995

15.

Braun

Clarke

(2012). Thematic analysis. In Cooper

Camic

P. M.

Long

D. L.

Panter

A. T.

Rindskopf

Sher

K. J.

(Eds.), APA handbook of research methods in psychology: Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological (Vol. 2, pp. 57–71). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13620-004.

16.

Camacho

Reinka

M. A.

Quinn

D. M.

(2020). Disclosure and concealment of stigmatized identities. Current Opinion in Psychology, 31, 28–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.07.031

17.

Carrasco

Kerne

(2018). Queer visibility: Supporting LGBT+ selective visibility on social media. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1–12). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173824

18.

Chadda

R. K.

Deb

K. S.

(2013). Indian family systems, collectivistic society and psychotherapy. Indian Journal of Psychiatry, 55(Suppl. 2), S299–S309. https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5545.105555

19.

Chambers

B. D.

Toller Erausquin

(2015). The promise of intersectional stigma to understand the complexities of adolescent pregnancy and motherhood. Journal of Child and Adolescent Behaviour, 3(5), Article 249. https://doi.org/10.4172/2375-4494.1000249

20.

Chandra

P. S.

Deepthivarma

Manjula

(2003). Disclosure of HIV infection in South India: Patterns, reasons and reactions. AIDS Care, 15(2), 207–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/0954012031000068353

21.

Chandrasekharan

Jhaver

Bruckman

Gilbert

(2022). Quarantined! Examining the effects of a community-wide moderation intervention on Reddit. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 29(4), Article 29. https://doi.org/10.1145/3490499

22.

Charles

Manoranjitham

S. D.

Jacob

K. S.

(2007). Stigma and explanatory models among people with schizophrenia and their relatives in Vellore, South India. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 53(4), 325–332. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020764006074538

23.

Chatterjee

(2018). Queer politics in India: Towards sexual subaltern subjects. Routledge.

24.

Cisneros

Bracho

(2019). Coming out of the shadows and the closet: Visibility schemas among undocuqueer immigrants. Journal of Homosexuality, 66(6), 715–734. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2017.1423221

25.

Collins

P. H.

(2000). Gender, Black feminism, and Black political economy. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 568(1), 41–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/000271620056800105

26.

Crenshaw

(1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. The University of Chicago Legal Forum, 140, 139–167.

27.

Das

Hodkinson

(2020). Affective coding: Strategies of online steganography in fathers’ mental health disclosure. New Media & Society, 22(5), 752–769. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819869611

28.

Davis

S. M.

(2018). Taking back the power: An analysis of Black women’s communicative resistance. Review of Communication, 18(4), 301–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/15358593.2018.1461234

29.

Derlega

V. J.

Grzelak

(1979). Appropriateness of self-disclosure. In Chelune

G. J.

(Ed.), Self-disclosure: Origins, patterns, and implications of openness in interpersonal relationships (pp. 151–176). Jossey-Bass.

30.

DeVito

M. A.

(2021). Adaptive folk theorization as a path to algorithmic literacy on changing platforms. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 5, 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1145/3476080

31.

DeVito

M. A.

(2022). How transfeminine TikTok creators navigate the algorithmic trap of visibility via folk theorization. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 6, Article 380. https://doi.org/10.1145/3555105

32.

Dey

(2019). Queering virtual groups: Exploring Facebook groups as a space for identity construction and social justice among the LGBTQ community in India (Order no. 13902632). GenderWatch; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/queering-virtual-groups-exploring-facebook-as/docview/2279845230/se-2.

33.

Dias Oliva

Antonialli

D. M.

Gomes

. (2021). Fighting hate speech, silencing drag queens? Artificial intelligence in content moderation and risks to LGBTQ voices online. Sexuality & Culture, 25(2), 700–732. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-020-09790-w

34.

Ermoshina

Musiani

(2022, November). Safer spaces by design? Federated architectures and alternative socio-technical models for content moderation. Annual Symposium of the Global Internet Governance Academic Network (Giganet). https://hal.science/hal-03930548

35.

Eslami

Rickman

Vaccaro

Aleyasen

Vuong

Karahalios

Hamilton

Sandvig

(2015). “I always assumed that I wasn’t really that close to [her]”: Reasoning about invisible algorithms in news feeds. In Proceedings of the rd33 annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 153–162). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702556

36.

Feingold

Z. R.

(2021). The stigma of incarceration experience: A systematic review. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 27(4), 550–569.

37.

Fernandez

J. R.

Birnholtz

(2019). “I don’t want them to not know”: Investigating decisions to disclose transgender identity on dating platforms. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 3, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1145/3359328

38.

Ferris

Duguay

(2020). Tinder’s lesbian digital imaginary: Investigating (im)permeable boundaries of sexual identity on a popular dating app. New Media & Society, 22(3), 489–506. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819864903

39.

Gillespie

(2018). Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, content moderation, and the hidden decisions that shape social media. Yale University Press.

40.

Goffman

(1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Simon & Schuster.

41.

Greeff

(2013). Disclosure and stigma: A cultural perspective. In Liamputtong

(Ed.), Stigma, discrimination and living with HIV/AIDS: A cross-cultural -perspective (pp. 71–95). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6324-1_5

42.

Griffith

F. J.

Stein

C. H.

(2021). Behind the Hashtag: Online disclosure of mental illness and community response on Tumblr. American Journal of Community Psychology, 67(3–4), 419–432. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12483

43.

Haimson

O. L.

Brubaker

J. R.

Dombrowski

Hayes

G. R.

(2015). Disclosure, stress, and support during gender transition on Facebook. In Proceedings of the th18 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work & social computing (pp. 1176–1190). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/2675133.2675152

44.

Haimson

O. L.

Delmonaco

Nie

Wegner

(2021). Disproportionate removals and differing content moderation experiences for conservative, transgender, and Black social media users: Marginalization and moderation gray areas. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 5, Article 466. https://doi.org/10.1145/3479610

45.

Johari

(2014, April 17). Hijra, Kothi, Aravani: A quick guide to transgender terminology. Scroll.in. https://scroll.in.http://scroll.in/article/662023/hijra-kothi-aravani-a-quick-guide-to-transgender-terminology

46.

Keyes

C. L. M.

(1998). Social well-being. Social Psychology Quarterly, 61(2), 121–140. https://doi.org/10.2307/2787065

47.

Keyes

C. L. M.

(2006). Subjective well-being in mental health and human development research worldwide: An introduction. Social Indicators Research, 77(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-005-5550-3

48.

Lanthier

Mason

Logie

C. H.

Myers

Du Mont

(2023). “Coming out of the closet about sexual assault”: Intersectional sexual assault stigma and (non) disclosure to formal support providers among survivors using Reddit. Social Science & Medicine, 328, Article 115978. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.115978

49.

Link

B. G.

Phelan

(2014). Stigma power. Social Science & Medicine, 103, 24–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.07.035

50.

Litt

(2012). Knock, knock: Who’s there? The imagined audience. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 56(3), 330–345. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2012.705195

51.

Luo

Hancock

J. T.

(2020). Self-disclosure and social media: Motivations, mechanisms and psychological well-being. Current Opinion in Psychology, 31, 110–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.08.019

52.

Mahomed

Stein

M. A.

Chauhan

Pathare

(2019). ‘They love me, but they don’t understand me’: Family support and stigmatisation of mental health service users in Gujarat, India. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 65(1), 73–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020764018816344

53.

Marwick

A. E.

boyd

(2011). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society, 13(1), 114–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810365313

54.

Mayworm

DeVito

M. A.

Delmonaco

Thach

Haimson

O. L.

(2024). Content moderation folk theories and perceptions of platform spirit among marginalized social media users. ACM Transactions on Social Computing, 7, 1–27.

55.

McDonald

Harris

K. L.

Ramirez

(2020). Revealing and concealing difference: A critical approach to disclosure and an intersectional theory of “closeting.” Communication Theory, 30(1), 84–104. https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/qtz017

56.

Meisner

(2023). Networked responses to networked harassment? Creators’ coordinated management of “hate raids” on twitch. Social Media + Society, 9(2), Article 179696. https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051231179696

57.

Meta Community Guidelines. (2024). Community guidelines. Facebook Help Center. https://www.facebook.com/help/477434105621119

58.

Milton

Ajmani

DeVito

M. A.

Chancellor

(2023). “I see me here”: Mental health content, community, and algorithmic curation on TikTok. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1–17). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3581489

59.

Moitra

Ahmed

S. I.

Chandra

(2021). Parsing the “me” in #MeToo: Sexual harassment, social media, and justice infrastructures. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 5, Article 111. https://doi.org/10.1145/3449185

60.

Moore

(2017). Where is the critical empirical interpersonal communication research? A roadmap for future inquiry into discourse and power: Critical empirical interpersonal research. Communication Theory, 27(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/comt.12107

61.

Namboodiri

George

Singh

S. P.

(2019). The Mental Healthcare Act 2017 of India: A challenge and an opportunity. Asian Journal of Psychiatry, 44, 25–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajp.2019.07.016

62.

Naslund

J. A.

Aschbrenner

K. A.

McHugo

G. J.

Unützer

Marsch

L. A.

Bartels

S. J.

(2019). Exploring opportunities to support mental health care using social media: A survey of social media users with mental illness. Early Intervention in Psychiatry, 13(3), 405–413. https://doi.org/10.1111/eip.12496

63.

Newman

M. W.

Lauterbach

Munson

S. A.

Resnick

Morris

M. E.

(2011). It’s not that I don’t have problems, I’m just not putting them on Facebook: Challenges and opportunities in using online social networks for health. In Proceedings of the ACM 2011 conference on computer supported cooperative work (pp. 341–350). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/1958824.1958876

64.

Nova

F. F.

DeVito

M. A.

Saha

Rashid

K. S.

Roy Turzo

Afrin

Guha

(2021). “Facebook promotes more harassment”: Social media ecosystem, skill and marginalized Hijra identity in Bangladesh. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 5, 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1145/3449231

65.

Ostendorf

Müller

S. M.

Brand

(2020). Neglecting long-term risks: Self-disclosure on social media and its relation to individual decision-making tendencies and problematic social-networks-use. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article e543388. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.543388

66.

Pandey

(2023, October 17). India Supreme Court declines to legalise same-sex marriage. BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-65525980

67.

Pendse

S. R.

Niederhoffer

Sharma

(2019). Cross-cultural differences in the use of online mental health support forums. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 3, Article 67. https://doi.org/10.1145/3359169

68.

Pinch

Birnholtz

Macapagal

Kraus

Moskowitz

(2024). The subtleties of self-presentation: A study of sensitive disclosure among sexual minority adolescents. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 8, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1145/3637408

69.

Pinch

Birnholtz

Rawat

Bhatter

Baruah

Dange

(2022). “Someone else is behind the screen”: Visibility, privacy, and trust on geosocial networking apps in India. Social Media + Society, 8(3), Article 211260. https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051221126076

70.

Plöderl

Tremblay

(2015). Mental health of sexual minorities. A systematic review. International Review of Psychiatry (Abingdon, England), 27(5), 367–385. https://doi.org/10.3109/09540261.2015.1083949

71.

Pretorius

McCashin

Coyle

(2022). Mental health professionals as influencers on TikTok and Instagram: What role do they play in mental health literacy and help-seeking? Internet Interventions, 30, Article 100591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.invent.2022.100591

72.

Pyle

Ellison

N. B.

Andalibi

(2023). Social media and college-related social support exchange for first-generation, low-income students: The role of identity disclosures. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 7, 2961–296. https://doi.org/10.1145/3610087

73.

Pyle

Roosevelt

Lacombe-Duncan

Andalibi

(2021). LGBTQ persons’ pregnancy loss disclosures to known ties on social media: Disclosure decisions and ideal disclosure environments. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1–17). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445331

74.

Rains

S. A.

Wright

K. B.

(2016). Social support and computer-mediated communication: A state-of-the-art review and agenda for future research. Annals of the International Communication Association, 40(1), 175–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2015.11735260

75.

Rand

Vallis

Aston

Price

Piccinini-Vallis

Rehman

Kirk

S. F. L.

(2017). “It is not the diet; it is the mental part we need help with”: A multilevel analysis of psychological, emotional, and social well-being in obesity. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being, 12(1), Article 1306421. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482631.2017.1306421

76.

Romo

L. K.

(2018). Coming out as a nondrinker at work. Management Communication Quarterly, 32(2), 292–296. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318917740227

77.

Ryff

C. D.

(1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(6), 1069–1081. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.1069

78.

Sambasivan

Batool

Ahmed

Matthews

Thomas

Gaytán-Lugo

L. S.

Nemer

Bursztein

Churchill

Consolvo

(2019). “They don’t leave us alone anywhere we go”: Gender and digital abuse in South Asia. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1–14). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300232.

79.

Sangaramoorthy

Jamison

Dyer

(2017). Intersectional stigma among midlife and older Black women living with HIV. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 19(12), 1329–1343. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691058.2017.1312530

80.

Saraff

Singh

Kaur

Biswal

(2022). Stigma and health of Indian LGBT population: A systematic review. Stigma and Health, 7(2), 178–195. https://doi.org/10.1037/sah0000361

81.

Schoenebeck

Batool

Darling

Grill

Wilkinson

Khan

Toyama

Ashwell

(2023). Online harassment in majority contexts: Examining harms and remedies across countries. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1–16). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3581020.

82.

Shahani

(2020). Queeristan: LGBTQ inclusion in the Indian workplace. Westland Business.

83.

Shaji

(2023, August 1). “Conversion therapy” still continues in India, despite a ban. The News Minute. https://www.thenewsminute.com/news/conversion-therapy-still-continues-india-despite-ban-180485

84.

Şimşek

Ö. F

. (2011). An intentional model of emotional well-being: The development and initial validation of a measure of subjective well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 12(3), 421–442. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-010-9203-0

85.

Spears

Postmes

(2015). Group identity, social influence, and collective action online: Extensions and applications of the SIDE model. In Sundar

S. S.

(Ed.), The handbook of the psychology of communication technology (1st ed., pp. 23–46). John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118426456.ch2

86.

Srivastava

(2001). Introduction: Semen, history, desire, and theory. South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies, 24(Suppl. 1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/00856400108723433

87.

Swami

Weis

Barron

Furnham

(2018). Positive body image is positively associated with hedonic (emotional) and eudaimonic (psychological and social) well-being in British adults. The Journal of Social Psychology, 158(5), 541–552. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2017.1392278

88.

Turan

J. M.

Elafros

M. A.

Logie

C. H.

Banik

Turan

Crockett

K. B.

Pescosolido

Murray

S. M.

(2019). Challenges and opportunities in examining and addressing intersectional stigma and health. BMC Medicine, 17(1), Article 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-018-1246-9

89.

Uttarapong

Cai

Wohn

D. Y.

(2021). Harassment experiences of women and LGBTQ live streamers and how they handled negativity. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM international conference on interactive media experiences (pp. 7–19). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3452918.3458794

90.

Wandrekar

J. R.

Nigudkar

A. S.

(2020). What do we know about LGBTQIA+ mental health in India? A review of research from 2009 to 2019. Journal of Psychosexual Health, 2(1), 26–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/2631831820918129

91.

Warner

Kitkowska

Gibbs

Maestre

J. F.

Blandford

(2020). Evaluating “prefer not to say” around sensitive disclosures. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1–13). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376150

92.

White

S. C.

(2017). Relational wellbeing: Re-centring the politics of happiness, policy and the self. Policy & Politics, 45(2), 121–136. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557317X14866576265970

93.

Wohn

D. Y.

Freeman

(2020). Audience management practices of live streamers on twitch. ACM International Conference on Interactive Media Experiences, 2020, 106–116. https://doi.org/10.1145/3391614.3393653

94.

Berkovsky

Taib

Conway

Zhou

Chen

(2017). User trust dynamics: An investigation driven by differences in system performance. In Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on intelligent user interfaces (pp. 307–317). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025171.3025219

Queerness and Mental Health in India: An Intersectional Approach to Sensitive Social Media Disclosures

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Literature Review

Intersectional Stigma

Benefits and Risks of Sensitive Disclosure

Benefits

Risks

Disclosure Strategies

Research Context

Methods

Participants

Procedure

Analysis

Findings

Reputational Risks and Willingness to Disclose

Risk of Further Pathologization

Risk of Damaging Social Status and Familial Reputation

Benefits/Risks of Disclosure on Social Media

Benefits: Communal Well-Being and Advocacy

Risks: Audience Harassment and Lack of Platform Support

Strategies to Navigate Disclosure on Social Media

Indirect Disclosures and Limiting Audience

Collective Action and Reporting

Discussion

Socio-Cultural Factors and Willingness to Disclose

Perceived Benefits of Disclosure

Platform Experience and Platform Spirit

Limitations and Future Work

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iDs

Notes

Author Biographies

References