Addressing Homophobic, Biphobic and Transphobic Bullying in Educational Contexts

Abstract

This chapter addresses homophobic, biphobic and transphobic (HBT) bullying in schools, colleges and universities. It provides a useful definition of this kind of bullying and provides guidance to schools, colleges and universities to support them in recognising and addressing it. Educational institutions play a critical role in protecting all children from bullying. Bullying, which is based on protected characteristics such as perceived or actual sexual orientation or gender identity, is a form of discrimination which contravenes the Equality Act (2010) in the United Kingdom (UK) and therefore schools, colleges and universities have a legal duty to eradicate it. Schools in the UK are required by law to have an anti-bullying policy. This should provide clear guidance to staff on how to recognise homophobic, biphobic and transphobic bullying and how to address it. Protecting children from harm is the responsibility of all members of staff. It is therefore critical that staff undertake professional learning and development to help them identify the signs of HBT bullying and to empower them to address it.

1. Introduction

Although schools need to have robust policies and practices in relation to HBT bullying, it is important to remember that this constitutes one strand of the whole institutional approach to Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans/transgender, Queer, Questioning and other non-normative identities (LGBTQ+) inclusion. Addressing bullying is essential but focusing solely on this aspect when it happens can be reactive. Adopting a proactive approach to LGBTQ+ inclusion through shaping the development of positive attitudes towards sexuality and gender identity should reduce the number of bullying incidents that take place. There is a need to educate perpetrators of bullying about why prejudice is wrong rather than punishing them.

2. What is homophobic, biphobic and transphobic bullying?

Homophobia is a hatred, fear and irrational dislike of individuals who have non-normative gender identities and sexualities. Homophobic, biphobic or transphobic bullying is bullying that a victim feels has been directed at them because of their actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity. It can take a variety of forms. These include physical and verbal abuse, inappropriate use of language and casual banter, being excluded from participation, online bullying and a range of forms of micro-aggressions. These include verbal and non-verbal exchanges such as laughing, smirking and eye contact between perpetrators or moving away from someone. This results in the victim feeling that these responses are related to their actual or perceived sexuality or gender identity. Homophobic, biphobic and transphobic bullying is motivated by prejudice based on a person’s actual or perceived sexuality or gender identity.

3. Micro-aggressions

Micro-aggressions were originally discussed in the context of race but have since been extended to other minoritised identities. Micro-aggressions are subtle forms of discrimination and arguably are a form of bullying. In the context of LGBTQ+ young people, micro-aggressions might take a range of forms, including moving away from someone because of their gender or sexual orientation, socially excluding someone or making casual remarks in the presence of an LGBTQ+ individual which perpetrators pass off as banter or simply a joke. Making a casual comment or expressing casual humour about someone, in their presence because they are (or perceived to be) LGBTQ+, is an example of a micro-aggression. The problem with micro-aggressions is that they are difficult to ‘call-out’ because perpetrators will often not admit that their behaviour is homophobic, biphobic or transphobic. It is therefore critical that all students and staff understand what constitutes a micro-aggression and educators need appropriate training to enable them to challenge micro-aggressions when they occur in educational spaces.

4. Minority stress and bullying

Meyer’s [1] model of minority stress provides a useful conceptual framework to further our understanding of bullying. The model assumes that all individuals are exposed to general stressors. However, Meyer argues that individuals with minoritised identities (for example, LGBTQ+ individuals) are exposed to two additional stressors. Meyer categorises these into distal stressors and proximal stressors.

Distal stressors originate externally to the individual, but they impact them. Bullying is an example of a distal stressor. It originates from other people (perpetrators), but it is targeted at an individual (the victim). It can have an adverse impact, including negative mental health outcomes for those individuals who are victims of bullying. Proximal stressors, in contrast, are internal stressors. The stressors originate within the individual because minoritised individuals and groups anticipate that they will be victim of bullying and other forms of discrimination. In the case of LGBTQ+ populations, the anticipation that something negative (for example, bullying) will occur can result in a range of adverse behaviours, including concealment, internalised homophobia, biphobia, or transphobia. Therefore, LGBTQ+ individuals might negotiate their personal identities by masking them or concealing them to reduce their exposure to bullying. In addition, LGBTQ+ individuals might witness prejudice-based bullying and start to self-stigmatise. When this occurs, they may start to dislike themselves and they may internalise the negative messages about their non-normative identities. The impacts of anticipating being bullied can lead to a range of adverse effects, including negative mental health outcomes. LGBTQ+ individuals may limit their social opportunities, avoid going into public and avoid accessing unsupervised spaces because of the fear that they will be exposed to bullying and other forms of discrimination. This anticipation that a negative incident might occur does not mean that it will occur. It creates internal psychological distress within potential victims who are always ‘on guard’ and who are constantly self-monitoring their identities so that they do not stand out.

The problem with Meyer’s model is that it places the emphasis on victims of bullying to solve the problems. The model assumes that negative experiences, such as bullying, can be mitigated by minoritised individuals forming groups or collectives to gain solidarity, support and positive affirmation of identity. Although this may be a helpful response, it does not place a duty on educational institutions to address the bullying systemically. Educational institutions need robust policies which focus on educating young people about all forms of bullying, why bullying is wrong, and how to recognise and respond when bullying is witnessed. The policies should also outline how victims will be supported and the interventions in place to support perpetrators.

5. Young people’s experiences of bullying

Research has demonstrated the prevalence of HTB bullying in primary schools. The Stonewall Teacher’s Report identified that:

• 45% of primary school teachers have reported that their pupils have experienced homophobic bullying.

• 70% of primary school teachers have reported that they have heard the use of homophobic language in their school.

• More than 80% of primary school teachers have had no training on how to tackle homophobic bullying.

• Primary school teachers often link HBT bullying to gender stereotypes [2].

Data on the extent of HBT bullying in secondary schools presents a concerning picture. In 2017, Stonewall published a report into the experiences of LGBTQ+ young people in school. The key findings were alarming:

• Nearly half of LGBTQ+ students (45%)—including 64% of transgender students—are bullied in school for being LGBTQ+.

• Most LGBTQ+ students (86%) are regularly exposed to negative language.

• Nearly one in ten transgender students (9%) experience death threats at school.

• Approximately seven in ten LGBTQ+ students (68%) report that teachers fail to challenge or rarely challenge homophobic, biphobic and transphobic language when they hear it.

• Two in five LGBTQ+ students (40%) are never taught LGBTQ+-related content at school.

• Around three in four LGBTQ+ students (77%) do not experience a curriculum which addresses trans or transgender content.

• More than half of LGBTQ+ students (53%) say that there is no adult at school that they can talk to [3].

Research by the charity Just Like Us [4] in 2021 found that:

• Young people are twice as likely to experience bullying (43% compared to 21% of their non-LGBT+ peers) and this is not always reported to a teacher.

• Half (51%) of LGBT+ young people reported that they had experienced anxiety.

• Bisexual and pansexual young people are more likely to have experienced cyberbullying.

• Bisexual young people are more likely to have experienced sexual harassment, including unwanted sexual touching.

In Further and Higher Education, a report [5] found that in Scotland, not all staff were trained to address discriminatory language and banter and trans students perceived that they had more negative experiences of further and higher education than LGB students, including experiencing bullying and harassment. There are implications for leaders of institutions. Leaders should ensure that college and university staff are trained in identifying banter and other forms of bullying and know how to respond to it. There should be a clear policy which outlines how incidents should be addressed and documented. Adequate provision of well-being services should be prioritised so that victims of bullying can gain the support that they need.

6. Sense of belonging

Students are unlikely to experience a sense of belonging if they are experiencing bullying. Deci and Ryan [6], through their self-determination theory, illustrate the vital role that ‘connectedness’ plays in facilitating human flourishing. Bullying can adversely impact on students’ capacities to connect to other people and to the institution.

7. Bullying and self-esteem

Mruk’s [7] two-dimensional model of self-esteem demonstrates that self-esteem is the product of self-worth and self-competence. Self-worth relates to the view that a person forms of themselves. This view is informed by the perspectives of others, including peers, parents and teachers. Self-competence relates to the ability to accomplish tasks. Where self-worth and self-competence are high, overall self-esteem is also high. When individuals are low in both dimensions, overall self-esteem is low. However, if individuals are high in a single dimension and low in the other, this can result in defensive self-esteem. Individuals who experience bullying may experience adverse effects on their self-worth. If they start to develop a poor sense of self, this can impact on their engagement with their studies and lead to students withdrawing from courses or not engaging with course content. In turn, this can also adversely impact their self-competence.

8. Interventions

Research demonstrates that a variety of interventions show promise [8]. These include the following:

Inclusive curricula: Integrating LGBTQ+-related content in the curriculum is a universal intervention which seeks to educate all students about the importance of diversity and respect for all. In addition, including this content in the curriculum fosters a culture on inclusion by making all identities visible, thus promoting a sense of belonging and connectedness.

Film/drama interventions: Involving students in making films, documentaries or drama productions to highlight the experiences of LGBTQ+ people can be a powerful way of developing students’ understanding about banter, the impact of bullying on LGBTQ+ people and appropriate ways of responding to bullying.

Mentoring: Providing LGBTQ+ people with access to a mentor can be a powerful way of providing support. Older students (who may be LGBTQ+ themselves, or allies) can be matched with younger LGBTQ+ students. This can provide opportunities for peer-to-peer talk and advice.

Staff training: Training all staff to recognise HBT bullying is vital. Staff should be trained in how to intervene/respond to bullying and how to have conversations with victims and perpetrators. In addition, staff should be appropriately trained in how to structure a conversation with a student if a student discloses their identity to them.

Social and emotional learning: Lessons which explicitly educate students in school about empathy, and relationships and increase their awareness about the impact that their own emotions can have on others may be useful in fostering a culture of inclusion [8].

9. Legislation

In the UK, the Equality Act (2010) places a legal duty on all educational institutions to prevent direct and indirect discrimination against individuals with a protected characteristic. Sexual orientation and gender reassignment are protected characteristics. Gender reassignment is not solely a medical process which takes place when an individual changes their gender. It can also be a social process. When an individual starts to live as a different gender, for example, by changing their name, dress or pronouns, they are starting the process of gender reassignment. Therefore, although students in school cannot receive medical intervention, they can still be classed as having a protected characteristic. Bullying is a form of direct discrimination and if educational institutions do not address bullying, this is a breach of the Equality Act.

The Equality Act also includes the Public Sector Equality Duty, which places a responsibility on educational institutions to foster good relations between groups of people, including those with and without protected characteristics. Educational institutions cannot promote good relations if they (a) do not tackle bullying and (b) do not make visible minoritised identities through the curriculum and the educational environment.

10. Key points

This chapter has emphasised:

• How schools, colleges and universities can support staff in recognising and addressing HBT bullying.

• The legal duties placed on educational institutions in relation to the Equality Act (2010) and anti-bullying policies.

• The importance of staff undertaking professional learning and development within the context of HBT bullying.

11. Conclusions

This chapter has addressed homophobic, biphobic and transphobic (HBT) bullying in schools, colleges and universities. It has also provided guidance to schools to support them in recognising and addressing it. The legal duties placed on educational institutions in the UK by the Equality Act (2010) have been outlined and explained in relation to sexual orientation and gender reassignment. The legal requirement of schools, colleges and universities to have an anti-bullying policy has also been highlighted and guidance has been given on what this policy should include. Additionally, this chapter has emphasised the importance of staff undertaking professional learning and development in relation to identifying the signs of and addressing HBT bullying.

Acknowledgments

The author declares no conflict of interest.