A Sociological Critique of Youth Strategies and Educational Policies that Address LGBTQ Youth Issues

Abstract

This paper adopts sociological and "after-queer" lenses in order to problematise anti-bullying approaches that are justified on the basis of the apparent "vulnerability" of LGBTQ youth to a range of negative mental health outcomes, including self-harm and suicidality. Subjecting recent youth strategies, educational policies and instructional resources to critical discourse analysis (Fairclough 2003), it identifies the discourse of risk/vulnerability as a dominant or "nodal" discourse around which other subdiscourses-including the discourses of homophobic bullying, isolation, suicidality, self-harm and resilience-cluster. It considers the discursive effects of this configuration of discourses which foreground or include certain aspects or experiences of being LGBTQ to the exclusion of others, resulting in a "selective representation," "simplification" and "condensation" of a much more complex social and cultural reality (Fairclough 2005). It argues that the singling out of LGBTQ youth as being "at risk" of homophobic bullying and mental health difficulties has a range of abnormalising, othering, re-stigmatising and heteronormativity-bolstering effects that obfuscate the role that schools themselves play in creating and sustaining the conditions that produce bullying. Rather than positioning LGBTQ youth as victims, and specifically targeting those who identify as LGBTQ as the beneficiaries of anti-homophobic bullying initiatives, it advocates a range of alternative frameworks that privilege the conditions and effects of gender regulation and normativity to which all children and youth are routinely subjected. The paper concludes by highlighting the need to address school-based organisational and cultural practices in order to reduce the incidence of gender and sexuality-based bullying in schools.

Trans and gender diverse youth resisting cisnormativity in school

“…These vulnerabilities are often individualised in deficit ways and measured through metrics of risk (see for example Grossman and D'augelli 2006). Dominant narratives of vulnerability-as-risk homogenously frame trans youth as passive victims in need of adult protection and, in turn, obfuscate how vulnerability is actively produced by school regimes (Bryan 2019). Consequently, trans identities are constructed as undesirable liabilities (Greteman 2018, 94), with trans youth's agency and capacity for critical thinking called into question (Fields and Tolman 2006;Sinclair-Palm and Gilbert 2018) as well as their capacity 'to negotiate, resist, and create new possibilities for alliance and community' (Mayo 2014, 4).…”

Protective Factors for LGBTI+ Youth Wellbeing: A Scoping Review Underpinned by Recognition Theory

“…The authors call for greater research into all aspects of legal relations. Protective school climates appear to be critically important, beyond a focus on protectionist approaches, which inform anti-discrimination measures and seek to address bullying [ 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 ]. Rather, this review highlights the potential benefit of strengths-based policy measures of provision for all students for chosen name and pronoun use [ 109 ]; inclusive access to all-gender bathrooms and changing rooms [ 169 ]; and inclusive dress codes, such as all-gender uniforms [ 75 , 109 ].…”

“…Such stigmatisation may equally apply to “mental health”, regarded as synonymous with ill health, as distinct from positive mental health or social wellbeing [ 2 ]. The resultant tendency for young LGBTI+ lives to be represented as universally vulnerable and “at risk”, on the basis of their orientations and identities, may lead to protectionist approaches, inadvertently reinforcing underlying inequalities [ 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 ]. As a consequence, LGBTI+ youth may have increased reluctance to disclose mental health difficulties due to concerns that providers may misunderstand their LGBTI+ identity as the source of mental ill health, or lack understanding and awareness of appropriate language and terminology [ 24 ].…”

Sociology and Education: A Study on Higher Education in Pakistan

“…Symbolic interactionist examine classroom dynamics and how interactions between students and teachers affect everyday life. This section covers each perspective (Bryan, 2019). Children are taught different societal roles from a young age, starting from preschool and kindergarten, as a part of socialization.…”