How Homophobia and Transphobia Are Manifested in Schools

Introduction

Despite the improvements made to school policies in the last two decades, homophobia and transphobia are still apparent in educational contexts. Blumenfeld and Raymond (1998) define homophobia as “the fear of being labelled homosexual and the irrational fear, dislike or hatred of gay males and lesbians” (Norman et al. , 2006, p. 36). Transphobia is defined as “an underlying fear of those who appear different from the traditional norms of masculinity and femininity (Wilson, Griffin and Wren 2005, p. 310). Homophobia and transphobia are not solely affecting the students but teachers are also subjects of this hostile attitude. According to the Department of Education and Skills, homophobic and transphobic bullying occurs in different forms; intimidation, isolation, cyber-bullying, name-calling, physical aggression and damage to one’s belongings. (DES, 2013). This essay will explore how homophobia and transphobia transpire through primarily direct verbal and physical abuse, also through teachers’ views and training, in addition to policy and the patronage of schools. Additionally this essay will discuss preventative measures and possible solutions that could pave the way towards safe and supportive schools where young people can grow in a holistic manner. It will primarily focus on three studies; Minton (2008), Maycock (2009) and Formby (2014). In addition, the results of these studies will be discussed in relation to Festinger’s (1954) Social Comparison Theory and Bronfennbrenner’s (1979) Ecological System Theory.

Literature Review

The purpose of a study carried out by Minton (2008) on one hundred and twenty three young Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender (LGBT) people in Ireland was to measure the scope of young people being targeted of homophobia in Ireland. Additionally, it examined the experiences of young people coming out and uncovering support. Minton’s study found that homophobia was more of an issue with and for boys at school. Smith (2014) also found this to be true after exploring a wide variety of studies. Smith (2014) states that young LGB people are at a higher risk of bullying in school, particularly LGB males who are more subjected to bullying. Contact was formed between two LGBT groups in Ireland for Minton’s study, in which surveys where distributed on three websites on investigating homophobia in Ireland, www. belongto. org, www. spunout. ie and www. abc. tcd. ie. The target takers of the survey were secondary school students. As 12 is the most common age that Irish young people come out and with school found to be the one of the most difficult experiences for LGBTQI individuals (Higgins et al. , 2016), this was an efficient platform for Minton (2008) to explore.

The second study, carried out by Formby (2014) investigated the impact of homophobic and transphobic bullying on education and employment. An online survey was circulated across European countries with focus given to results from five of these countries, Poland, Croatia, Ireland, Denmark and Italy to gather data on the subject. This study found that peers were not just the ones carrying out the bullying, teachers were also guilty of bullying of a homophobic and transphobic nature towards the students in schools. The study also found homophobia and transphobia exhibited in the curriculum with participants worried about the invisibility of LGBTQ in education including suitable sex education (Formby, 2014). While Formby’s sample size was slightly more than Minton’s (2008), at 187, it is relatively small for a study on numerous countries. Despite this, it is mixed methods with having a balance of closed questions and open questions. Minton also gathers some qualitative data through some open-ended questions. It is interesting to see the comparisons between countries in Formby’s study. It gives valuable information on how countries are almost similar when it comes to LGBT students having negative experiences in school. (Formby, 2014). Though some participants did not disclose their country, therefore the results cannot be generalised which Formby herself admits.

Maycock’s et al., (2009) study, on the contrary, was one of the most significant studies carried out on LGBT people in relation to mental health. With over 1, 100 participants on the online survey and forty individuals who participated in focus groups, this mixed-methods study provides valuable quantitative and qualitative data. The main aim of this study was to identify and find responses of suicide among LGBT people in Ireland, in particular young people. It points out that homophobia and transphobia are problematic in schools in United Kingdom (Maycock 2009). It also refers to a national study carried out on the implementation of Relationships and Sexuality Education (RSE) in secondary schools stating that there are only two lessons in the resource pack on sexual orientation for schools on RSE in Ireland and they are not compulsory. This shows an indirect stigma towards people who identify as LGBT by assuming that all students are heterosexual, therefore education on sexual orientation is optional (Maycock, 2009). Macintosh (2007) is in line with these findings too, the curriculum in school regularly refers heterosexual as normal and refers homosexual as the other. Homophobia and transphobia in schools is evident in these findings.

School culture, norms and Festinger’s Social Comparison Theory

Social comparison theory, Festinger’s theory (1954) is that “people get a sense of validity and cognitive clarity by comparing themselves in significant domains against an objective benchmark provided by the individuals they are comparing themselves with” (Festinger, 1954). This theory could explain the reason behind homophobia and transphobia in schools. Students see the teachers ignoring all sexualities albeit heterosexual, therefore the students compare other students who identify as LGBT to what is considered the norm, they make a downward comparison and view these students as worse than them and consider them to be out of their normal living sphere and bullying occurs. On the flip side, students who are LGBT could become clinically depressed if they have an upward comparison according to Festinger’s theory, they see themselves outside of the cognitive image. (Festinger 1954). According to Kaufman and Powell (2014) heterosexuality is the norm and the only way to be accepted and live as a human being is to be heterosexual. In schools, the rules are related to being heterosexual and only heterosexual. Uniforms in mixed schools are an example of this. Girls are considered to be feminine and are obliged to wear skirts. Boys are masculine human beings and it is obligatory for them to wear trousers as part of the school uniform. Rules such as boys are forbidden to enter girls changing rooms and bathrooms and vice versa convey a message of transphobia. These rules all come down to Festinger’s theory, that of uniformity. According to Festinger (1954) peoples’ personal beliefs can be changed due to persuasion by others to conform to uniformity (Festinger, 1954) girls do it this way, boys this way. Participants in Formby’s (2014) study stated that subject choices portrayed transphobia and homophobia as some subjects are only in boys’ schools and some only in girls’ schools. Festinger’s theory explains homophobia and transphobia in schools. These people go against the norm and counter to consistency of gender and sexuality.

Direct Homophobic and transphobic bullying, verbal and physical

One of the biggest studies done on this area by Maycock (2009) demonstrates that homophobia and transphobia is conveyed through bullying. More than half of school LGBT students surveyed in Maycock’s study had experienced being the victim of name calling due to their sexual orientation by other students. Minton et al, (2008) found that students of the LGBT community are at risk of bullying in schools and this study also shows to what degree theses students experience harassment such as name calling and nasty mocking. A student’s sexuality is one of the main reasons for being a victim of bullying in schools, with 24. 8% of the students who completed the survey experienced this once a day. This was higher than bullying occurrences due to a student’s race or colour which was 1. 1% and religion which was 0. 0% once a day. 99% were of Irish or Western European ethnic backgrounds. (Minton, 2008). This study also found that verbal abuse due to student’s sexuality was more common in schools with 34. 3% of students experiencing this regularly, comparable to Maycock’s findings. Students who are LGBT are more prone to bullying than heterosexual students (Formby, 2015 and Minton, 2008). This research gives an idea of the extent to which homophobia and transphobia is apparent in schools, however, a limitation the study found itself was that the study was done online and some surveys were distributed to two LGBT clubs, BeLonG to in Dublin and one in Cork. This perhaps encouraged people who were LGBT and victims of bullying to complete the survey. (Minton, 2008). This study also found that it was not solely other students carrying out the bullying in schools, parents, teachers and co-workers were among other culprits condoning in this sort of behaviour (Minton, 2008) similar to Formby’s findings (2014).

Relationships and Sexuality Education

Relationships and Sexuality Education (RSE) in Ireland only has two lessons in the resource pack that actually discusses sexual orientation, despite RSE being a mandatory subject for all students at junior cycle level, the contents of curriculum is not compulsory and according to Maycock et al (2007) the wider school community, parents and teachers can influence what parts of the curriculum are taught (Keating, 2016). An important finding from the Ombudsman for Children in 2012 indicated that students felt that they would have been more comfortable reporting homophobic bullying if the issue of homophobia had been discussed (DES, 2013a). Bronfenbrenner model (1979) explains how individuals behave based on the social context. It explains why homophobia and transphobia exists in schools. A social context such as a school can influence an individual to bully. Brinkman (2015) suggests that the influence affecting a child to bully is bidirectional and not one directional like the Bronfenbrenner model explains. Brinkman states “a child is being impacted while simultaneously impacting the surrounding systems. ” (Brinkman, 2015, p. 40). As research shows this is true.

Migliaccio and Raskauskas (2016) found that bullying can occur if students are not subjected to or educated on the different cultures and diversity. Allan et al (2008) Drawing from data taken from a nationwide study in the United Kingdom on primary schools, Allan found that homophobia and transphobia are learned by children early on in their lives, they learn there are ‘boy’ activities and ‘girl’ activities deriving from Butler’s theory (1991) and that the term ‘gay’ can be used to refer to something unpleasant or something that does not function properly and family members who identify as homosexual are surreptitious. Lack of education or miseducation on homosexuality and transsexuality leaves the platform open for bullying to occur. It is not discussed in education, therefore the inclination is these are not normal and it is something to tease someone about (De Palma Ungaro, 2017).

Teachers and Patronage

Only up until recently were teachers not allowed to teach or could lose their jobs in a Catholic school if they identified as LGBT. In Formby’s (2014) study one Irish respondent said that unless he hid his sexuality as a gay man, it would be impossible to find a teaching position in most schools are they were controlled by the Catholic Church. This law has since been lifted, however, teachers who identify as LGBT still feel uncomfortable in the present day as a fear of being left out of different responsibilities within the school or distress that they could lose their jobs next year if they are in temporary employment. This is evident in interviews carried out by the Journal newspaper of gay teachers in Ireland. Although not a psychological based study, or study in that regard, it still is first-hand accounts from gay teachers in Ireland about their negative experiences, which shows homophobia and transphobia present in schools. The article was written before Section 37. 1 of the Employment Equality Act was amended in 2015.

At present teachers of the LGBT community are allowed to work in schools regardless of the schools ethos. A LGBT teacher can still be declined a job if a priest or someone on the selection panel who is homophobic or transphobic deliberately gives less points at interview stage to that teacher. The law is written down and protects you legally, however, physically a gay teacher is not protected in reality. From this, it is clear homophobia and transphobia is still expressed in schools. A recent study carried out by Neary (2017) has found that this is the case for LGBT teachers in Ireland. Neary (2017) found that LGBT primary teachers and second-level teachers in Catholic schools have to promote the teaching of the Catholic ethos daily and therefore constructing a difficult path to achieve a normal professional lifestyle. According to Neary (2017) other studies found this outcome too for LGBT-Q teachers such as (Connell, 2015; Epstein and Johnson, 1994; Gowran, 2004 and Gray, 2013).

Policy

In 2013, the Department of Education and Skills Anti-Bullying Procedures for Primary and Post-Primary Schools were issued, requiring all primary and second level schools to include homophobia and transphobia in their anti-bullying policies and to document and implement prevention and education strategies. Despite this as aforementioned RSE is not mandatory in schools (Maycock et al, 2007). This brings a stigma towards LGBT people and sends the message that heterosexual is the norm and it is the only aspect that is compulsory to study. This defeats the purpose of including homophobia and transphobia in the anti-bullying policy. In the DES (2013) document, schools are encouraged to avoid gender-stereotyping school subjects and activities and it suggests gender neutral toilets. The discretion is on the school, whether or not schools are enforcing this is an area for review.

Discussion

Bullying appeared to be the most prominent form in which homophobia and transphobia is manifested in schools, in particular verbal bullying (Minton, 2008; Maycock; 2009 and Formby 2014). Homophobia and transphobia also appeared through the curriculum, patronage and school rules (Higgins et al; 2016). Despite homophobic and transphobic bullying introduced in a nationwide anti-bullying policy (DES, 2013) research suggests that this form of bullying is still apparent in schools (Formby, 2014). Research implies that if school communities were educated on sexual orientation and gender identity, the less homophobia and transphobia will exist, according to the GLEN study (Higgins et al. , 2016). The more students come across people in same sex relationships and transgender people the more it will become normal for them. The stigma towards LGBT people needs to be removed. Education is required for all teachers. They must react to the language in the correct way following policy (Higgins et al. , 2016). It would be interesting to carry out surveys and see the results post marriage referendum in 2015.

Conclusion

Evident from the literature review change needs to be made in Irish education due to homophobia and transphobia being apparent in schools, through bullying, policy, patronage and the curriculum. Moving forward there needs to be more research done on homophobia and transphobia in schools in order for people to be aware that it is a serious issue. Training needs to be mandatory for each staff member in all schools on the issue and how to provide support to these students. (Higgins et al. , 2016). It is necessary for sexuality education to be compulsory along with education on sexual orientation and gender identity. (Maycock, 2009). This would help eradicate the conundrum of homophobia and transphobia.