LGBTQ+ youth whose families have supported them (e.g., showing warmth, enjoying time together, having closeness) have a greater likelihood of positive health outcomes, including healthy self-esteem, general good health, and social support (figure 9.3). Family support is also a protective factor against negative health outcomes in early adulthood, such as depression, suicidal ideation, and substance abuse. Family support has been demonstrated to have a lifelong impact on adult development, quality of life, and reduction of victimization and to improve physical and mental health, including in older adults. Trans youth have also reported long-lasting positive effects from family support; 72 percent of trans youth with parental support reported being more satisfied with their lives than those without (33 percent). These same youth reported more consistent (70 percent) positive mental health outcomes than those whose parents were not supportive (15 percent).[9]
Figure 9.3. Individuals and families show their support during a pride parade. (Unsplash license, Jakayla Toney.)
Family Rejection
A majority of research on LGBTQ+ youth and their families, however, has emphasized the negative outcomes of family rejection. Rejection is associated with higher levels of emotional distress, suicidal ideation, and suicide attempts. In fact, LGBTQ+ youth whose parents were frequently rejecting during adolescence reported a rate of suicide attempts that was more than eight times that of those with accepting parents. Research also suggests the adolescent and young adult LGBTQ+ community experiences increased homelessness as a result of family rejection, particularly for youth of color. Upon disclosure of sexual orientation, some parents decide to eject their children from the house, forcing them to live with other family members, in friends’ homes, in foster care, in homeless shelters, or on the streets. Of the two million homeless youth in 2014 in the United States, 20–40 percent identify as LGBTQ+. Homeless LGBTQ+ youth may suffer even more negative health outcomes than those not displaced from home.[10]
PFLAG
PFLAG is a national organization begun in 1973 by Jeanne Manford to support parents and loved ones of LGBTQ+ people. Formerly called Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, PFLAG has evolved over time to be inclusive of all LGBTQ+ persons and families. It advocates on behalf of all LGBTQ+ people and also provides a space for loved ones and youth to come together to talk about challenges associated with coming out, affirmatively raising LGBTQ+ children, and respecting and valuing all.[11]
LGBTQ+ Youth and Education
Youth spend more than 50 percent of their waking hours in schools. Schools play an important part in the development of youths’ social skills, educational growth, and cognitive development. The climate of schools can shape the experiences that LGBTQ+ students have throughout their lives and contribute to the overall well-being of their mental health. The experiences and outcomes of LGBTQ+ students from supportive schools show stark differences from those students from schools that are neutral or rejecting (figure 9.4).
Think about your experiences in kindergarten through twelfth grade or the experiences of a young person you know well. How would you describe the atmosphere for LGBTQ+ students in that school?
The website reports high levels of harassment of LGBTQ+ students in schools. Was that your experience too?
Did your school use any of the strategies discussed? If so, which of the strategies worked the best? If not, which do you think would have helped?
THIS PICTURE NEEDS TO BE CHANGED AS WELL.
THIS PICTURE NEEDS TO BE CHANGED AS WELL.Figure 9.4. Students at a National Coming Out Day celebration in Seattle, Washington. (CC BY Seattle Parks and Recreation.)
History of LGBTQ+ Inclusivity in Education
In 1984, Project 10, the first support group for LGBTQ+ students in a formal educational system, was started in a Los Angeles high school by Virginia Uribe, a teacher and counselor. Uribe experienced significant backlash from community members. Project 10’s mission was to create supportive, welcoming, and safe campuses for sexual minority youth. It helped establish the first safe zones and developed training for schools on implementing policy changes to protect youth. Similar efforts began on the East Coast several years later. GLSEN, formerly the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network, was founded in 1990 by a group of teachers in Massachusetts with a passion for improving the quality of education for LGBTQ+ youth. GLSEN has become a leading national organization for ensuring safe and affirming educational systems for LGBTQ+ youth. Also during the 1990s, the first gay-straight alliance (GSA) was established in Salt Lake City, Utah. Despite resistance that continues today from the community, administration, and parents, the Salt Lake City GSA persevered, and schools all across the nation slowly began implementing similar support efforts. As of 2015, nearly 60 percent of students reported having GSAs at their school.[12]
GLSEN has been conducting the National School Climate Survey every year since 2001, and LGBTQ+ content and resources in schools have been gradually increasing every year. Out of almost eighteen thousand LGBTQ+ students sampled by GLSEN’s 2019 National School Climate Survey, about 20 percent reported positive inclusion of LGBTQ+ issues in curricula, most (61.6%) reported that their school had a Gay-Straight Alliance, Gender-Sexuality Alliance (GSA), or Queer-Straight Alliance (QSA) or similar club, and 48.9 percent reported access to library materials with information on LGBTQ+ issues (figure 9.5).[13]
State legislation shapes the experience of students in schools. According to a comprehensive survey published in the Columbia Law Review, twenty states maintain statutes that “prohibit or restrict the discussion of homosexuality in public schools.” Some laws prohibit teachers from “promoting” homosexuality or suggesting that there are safe ways to practice homosexual sex. Others demand that teachers disseminate misinformation, such as “homosexual conduct is a criminal offense” and “homosexual activity [is] primarily responsible for contact with the AIDS virus.” This argument has been present in sex education since the 1980s. Policies such as these promote peer discrimination, harassment, and assault of LGBTQ+ youth.[14]
THIS PICTURE HAS TO BE REPLACED IWTH A BETTER ONE
THIS PICTURE HAS TO BE REPLACED IWTH A BETTER ONEFigure 9.5. LGBTQ+ resources in a school library. (CC-BY College Library.)
Sex Education
Since the 1980s, sexual health education has focused on an abstinence-based, or abstinence-only until marriage, approach. This approach to sex education promotes sex as an act that occurs between two heterosexual cisgender persons after getting married. Further, same-sex attraction is feared and gender stereotypes are reinforced. Public health organizations and most parents agree that sex education should include discussions of LGBTQ+ identities. Eight-five percent of parents of high schoolers reported wanting sexual orientation discussed in sex education, and 78 percent of middle school parents wanted sexual orientation discussed in sex education.[15]
In reality, less than 4 percent of LGBTQ+ youth reported any mention of sexual or gender orientation in their health classes, and only 12 percent were told about same-gender relationships. The routine omission of LGBTQ+ issues from sex education curricula constitutes a violation of adolescent human rights.[16]It is a violation because it “robs youth of sexual agency by withholding information that is critical to health and well-being.”[17] Whether habitual or deliberate, the omission of LGBTQ+ topics from health curricula implies that sexual and gender fluidity are not part of the natural biological order and are by default unnatural or perverse.[18]
When discussions of LGBTQ+ issues do appear in health textbooks, the language clearly shifts toward LGBTQ+ persons as the Other and makes it seem as though the sexual experiences of LGBTQ+ youth are vastly different from those of heterosexual and cisgender youth.[19] Although LGBTQ+ youth do have some differences in sexual experiences, including information tailored to their needs can help reduce the risk of sexually transmitted infections. Sex education that affirms LGBTQ+ youth delays the age of first sexual intercourse and reduces
unintended teen pregnancy;
rates of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections;
overall number of sexual partners; and
unprotected sex while increasing condom and contraception use.[20]
Neutral and Negative Schools
As of 2020, only seventeen states and the District of Columbia had laws specifically addressing the discrimination, harassment, and bullying of students based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Lack of legislation means interpretation of policies is variable and leaves policy development up to individual districts and schools. Students in schools without policies are at a greater likelihood of experiencing discriminatory practices and are more likely to fear discrimination and bullying in the future. Even more troubling for LGBTQ+ students, five states (Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Texas) prohibit presenting any content on LGBTQ+ issues.[21]
Heteronormative socialization becomes more intense as youth age, and earlier exposure to discrimination has been shown to increase the likelihood of victimization for LGBTQ+ youth.[22] A 2015 analysis of the Youth Behavior Risk Surveillance Survey found high rates of peer bullying behavior toward LGBTQ+ youth. Of LGBTQ+ students experiencing discriminatory behaviors,
10 percent were threatened or injured with a weapon on school property;
34 percent were bullied on school property;
28 percent were bullied electronically through social media or other sites;
23 percent experienced sexual dating violence in the prior year;
18 percent experienced physical dating violence; and
18 percent were raped at some point in their lives.[23]
A study of transgender youth found even higher rates of discrimination and violence in several areas:
25 percent experienced physical bullying;
52 percent experienced dating bullying;
35 percent experienced bullying specifically due to gender; and
47 percent experienced bullying specifically due to gender expression.[24]
School bullying has long-term effects on the mental health and quality of life of LGBTQ+ students. Bullying has been shown to be associated with increased depression, anxiety, and suicidality and decreased self-esteem. Bullying can also affect school outcomes by increasing negative attitudes toward school, truancy, and disciplinary problems while lowering GPAs and decreasing interest in pursuing further education (figure 9.6).[25]
Figure 9.6. The Welsh Assembly Government sponsored the Anti-bullying Respect Tour of 2009. (CC BY-ND Working Word.)
Educators confirm witnessing discriminatory and violent behavior toward LGBTQ+ students in schools, even as early as elementary school. An alarming 70 percent of LGBTQ+ youth heard antigay speech at school (e.g., “That’s so gay, gay; you’re so gay”), 60 percent heard another type of homophobic remark (e.g., “fag” or “dyke”), and 56 percent heard homophobic remarks from their teachers. Additionally, youth heard comments about gender expression from peers at least 60 percent of the time and from teachers and school staff 71 percent of the time. Many of these behaviors go unnoticed and undocumented. In fact, some educators (between 31 and 42 percent) fail to recognize harassment by other students, such as the use of the word “fag” or the phrase “that’s so gay,” and do not intervene appropriately when it arises. Forty-seven percent of LGBTQ+ students who reported homophobic harassment to a teacher or support staff and over 90 percent of students who heard gender expression discrimination never saw the school staff intervene. Fifty-seven percent of LGBTQ+ youth never reported harassment and assault, because of fear of inaction by the school. Bullying isn’t exclusive to fellow students in schools. Forty-four percent of educators reported hearing other school staff make derogatory comments about or toward LGBTQ+ students, with the highest prevalence of educator bullying and harassment occurring in middle school.[26]
Explore
GLSEN’s policy maps (www.glsen.org/policy-maps) provide a comprehensive overview of state laws that affirm nondiscrimination or protect transgender, nonbinary, and gender-nonconforming students.
Find the state where you live or where you grew up on each of the maps; what kinds of protections does this state offer for kindergarten through grade twelve students?
What are the differences between how states treat sexual orientation and gender identity? What trends do you see?
Explore other parts of the GLSEN website and pick one resource you find most compelling. Why is this important to you?
Figure 9.7. The Capital TransPride on May 20, 2017, in Washington, D.C. was hosted by the Studio Theatre. (CC-BY-SA Ted Eytan.)
Michigan, Maine, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania have ruled that discriminating against transgender students is a violation of Title IX, which prohibits sex discrimination in schools.[27]
Check Your Knowledge
Contributed by Has Arakelyan, Rio Hondo College
Multiple-Choice Questions
1. What is a major protective factor against negative health outcomes for LGBTQ+ youth?
A) family support
B) school neutrality
C) peer rejection
D) lack of resources
2. What percentage of trans youth with parental support reported being more satisfied with their lives?
A) 33%
B) 72%
C) 15%
D) 48%
3. Which organization was founded in 1990 to improve education for LGBTQ+ youth?
A) PFLAG
B) Project 10
C) GLSEN
D) GSA
4. What is a consequence of family rejection for LGBTQ+ youth?
A) increased self-esteem
B) lower rates of homelessness
C) higher rates of emotional distress and suicide attempts
D) improved school performance
Answer: C) Higher rates of emotional distress and suicide attempts
5. As of 2015, what percentage of students reported having a Gay-Straight Alliance (GSA) at their school?
A) 20%
B) 33%
C) 48%%
D) 60%
Discussion Questions
How does family support impact the long-term health and well-being of LGBTQ+ youth?
What are the effects of school climate on the experiences and outcomes of LGBTQ+ students?
Why is the presence of organizations like GLSEN and PFLAG important for LGBTQ+ youth and their families?
How do laws restricting the discussion of LGBTQ+ topics in schools affect students and school environments?
In what ways can schools and families work together to create safer and more supportive environments for LGBTQ+ youth?
Multiple-Choice Questions - Answers
1. A) family support
2. B) 72%
3. C) GLSEN
4. C) higher rates of emotional distress and suicide attempts
5. D) 60%
THIS PICTURE NEEDS TO BE CHANGED AS WELL.
THIS PICTURE HAS TO BE REPLACED IWTH A BETTER ONE
