LGBTQ+ Children and Risks Associated with Trafficking
by Anumitha Aravindan
It is known that marginalized groups are considered to be at greater risk of child trafficking, and LGBTQ+ children are among the most vulnerable of these groups (Allan et. al. 2023); however, estimates regarding trafficking rates vary since a vast amount of cases go unreported for many reasons, including the fear of stigmatization and prejudice (Al-Tammemi et. al. 2023).
There are a number of factors that contribute to the increased chance of being trafficked. Firstly, studies show that LGBTQ+ youth report multiple adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) at higher rates compared to their cisgender counterparts, which put them at risk of entering environments that may make them more vulnerable to exploitation. For example, one study surveying LGBTQ+ youth ages 14-18 found that nearly half (43%) of participants reported at least 4 ACEs, which is considered to be a significant level of trauma exposure . Among these ACEs, emotional neglect (58%), emotional abuse (56%), and living with a family member with mental illness (51%) were the most common (Craig et. al. 2020). As a result, many children living under these conditions may have reduced access to spaces that provide them with the safety or resources they need, and therefore are at a high risk of experiencing homelessness 一 an estimated 40% of youth experiencing homelessness identify as LGBTQ+ (Morton et. al. 2018), although this is likely to be an underestimate.
The vulnerabilities that affect many LGBTQ+ youth put them at a higher risk of being taken advantage of by traffickers, who often prey on the lack of security and structure that these children face. These traumatic experiences, along with the mental health challenges that many queer youth struggle with, may mean that they may be even less likely to understand abusive environments or dynamics, increasing the risks of being trapped in such relationships (Calton et. al. 2015). One study examining victimization of youth across 10 high schools found that higher percentages of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth reported being victimized by physical dating violence (43%), psychological dating abuse (59%), cyber dating abuse (37 %), and sexual coercion (23%) compared heterosexual youth, who reported rates of 29, 46, 26, and 12%, respectively (Dank et. al. 2013). Another study examining intimate partner violence amongst a sample of gay, bisexual and heterosexual men found that about 79% of gay men and more than 83% of bisexual men reported experiencing intimate partner violence, compared to 64% of heterosexual men (Dickerson-Amaya et. al., 2019). Although resources do exist to identify and assist youth who have been trafficked, LGBTQ+ children who have been isolated from support systems may be unaware that these resources exist.
More worryingly, many queer youth believe they will be further stigmatized or excluded if they were to seek help (Stevenson et. al. 2024). This has been further complicated by the current legal landscape in the United States; over the past few years, there has been an increase in legislation curbing protections for marginalized Americans across several states, including LGBTQ+ individuals. In 2024, 49 such bills were codified into law, reducing access to necessary healthcare, mental health support, education, and repealing laws regarding nondiscrimination in public and private spaces (Osborn et. al. 2025, Levengood et. al. 2023).
In caring for LGBTQ+ survivors of trafficking, extensive education regarding safe interpersonal relationships is key to preventing revictimization, especially since LGBTQ+ youth are at a higher risk of having experienced harmful relationship dynamics. Those involved in the care of LGBTQ+ youth should take care to use affirming gender-inclusive language throughout, and ask direct, focused questions to better understand the patient’s safety and impact of abuse on them. Assumptions regarding the sexual orientation and gender identity of both the patient and other individuals involved may be of little use, and would negatively impact any sense of trust between the patient and provider. As mentioned earlier, LGBTQ+ children are at higher risk of being exposed to unstable or abusive environments; therefore, it is imperative to assess the patient’s safety first and coordinate care accordingly. Healthcare providers should determine if further action is needed to stabilize the patient’s situation, such as connecting survivors with case workers, legal and financial support, and shelters inclusive to queer youth, among others. If these basic needs are not met, adherence to care, as well as access to more specialized care in the future, become difficult to achieve for both the patient and provider.
Once these barriers have been addressed, referrals to support and advocacy networks can serve as pillars of support for survivors, especially for those who have been isolated from friends and family. Organizations such as the Center For Family Services, Sanctuary For Families, and You Are More Than 一 the latter of which is a survivor-led organization 一 offer a variety of options, from hotlines, long-term counseling and support groups for survivors. Last, but not least, education for screening at-risk youth and trafficking prevention may be more difficult to address, since they require a multi-faceted approach, but are nonetheless highly important in addressing the cycle of exploitation. Education systems that are inclusive of LGBTQ+ identities are key to improving the safety of queer youth by reducing the likelihood of victimization due to homophobia (Russell et. al. 2021). This also reduces the chance of individuals entering unsafe environments that could put them at risk of being exploited. On the other hand, for youth who lack this support, maintaining access to shelters, hotlines, and counseling services can serve as a vital lifeline, even if temporary. Finally, from an activism perspective, healthcare providers — due to their experiences in providing care for individuals who face significant barriers to care — can lend key, evidence-based insight to both to the public and relevant organizations regarding best practices for the health and wellbeing of LGBTQ+ individuals.
References
Allan, C., Winters, G. M., & Jeglic, E. L. (2023). Current Trends in Sex Trafficking Research. Current psychiatry reports, 25(5), 175–182. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-023-01419-7
Al-Tammemi, A. B., Nadeem, A., Kutkut, L., Ali, M., Angawi, K., Abdallah, M. H., Abutaima, R., Shoumar, R., Albakri, R., & Sallam, M. (2023). Are we seeing the unseen of human trafficking? A retrospective analysis of the CTDC k-anonymized global victim of trafficking data pool in the period 2010-2020. PloS one, 18(4), e0284762.
Calton, J. M., Cattaneo, L. B., & Gebhard, K. T. (2016). Barriers to Help Seeking for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Survivors of Intimate Partner Violence. Trauma, violence & abuse, 17(5), 585–600. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838015585318
Craig, S. L., Austin, A., Levenson, J., Leung, V. W. Y., Eaton, A. D., & D'Souza, S. A. (2020). Frequencies and patterns of adverse childhood events in LGBTQ+ youth. Child abuse & neglect, 107, 104623. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2020.104623
Dank, M., Lachman, P., Zweig, J. M., & Yahner, J. (2014). Dating violence experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth. Journal of youth and adolescence, 43(5), 846–857. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-013-9975-8
Dickerson-Amaya, N., & Coston, B. M. (2019). Invisibility Is Not Invincibility: The Impact of Intimate Partner Violence on Gay, Bisexual, and Straight Men's Mental Health. American journal of men's health, 13(3), 1557988319849734. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557988319849734
Levengood, T. W., & Hadland, S. E. (2023). Hostile laws and hospitalization: Why anti-LGBTQ+ legislation threatens adolescent lives. Journal of hospital medicine, 18(5), 449–452. https://doi.org/10.1002/jhm.13038
Morton, M. H., Dworsky, A., Matjasko, J. L., Curry, S. R., Schlueter, D., Chávez, R., & Farrell, A. F. (2018). Prevalence and Correlates of Youth Homelessness in the United States. The Journal of adolescent health : official publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine, 62(1), 14–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2017.10.006
Osborn, M. (2025). Groomers, gays, and gender ideology: Why the anti-LGBTQIA+ legislative backlash is a moral panic and why criminologists should care. Punishment & Society, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/14624745251344568
Russell, S. T., Bishop, M. D., Saba, V. C., James, I., & Ioverno, S. (2021). Promoting School Safety for LGBTQ and All Students. Policy insights from the behavioral and brain sciences, 8(2), 160–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/23727322211031938
Stevenson, E., Sandman, G. R., & McGinn, J. (2024). The Role of Stigma in LGBTQIA+ Youth in Rural and Urban Areas. Youth, 4(4), 1374-1386. https://doi.org/10.3390/youth4040087