Masaryk University Faculty of Arts

Department of English and American Studies

English Language and Literature

Tereza Cahová

The Trevor Project and Project: Models for Suicide Prevention for LGBT Youth?

Bachelor’s Diploma Thesis

Supervisor: Jeffrey Alan Vanderziel, B.A.

2017

I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently, using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography.

…………………………………………….. Author’s signature

Acknowledgment

First, I would like to thank my supervisor Mr. Jeffrey Vanderziel for his patience and support. Next, I my thanks goes to Mr. Ondřej Harnušek for his support and ideas when I was lost. Finally, I would like to thank my family and my boyfriend without whom this thesis would have never came into existence.

3

Tables of Content:

Acknowledgment ...... 3

Chapter One: Introduction ...... 5

Chapter Two: Is truly every LGBT youth at risk of suicidal behavior? ...... 10

Chapter Three: Terminology ...... 14

Chapter Four: School and Family Environment and Suicidal Factors ...... 20

Chapter Five: Prevention Programs ...... 29

Chapter Six: Conclusion ...... 36

Works Cited...... 38

4

Chapter One: Introduction

The LGBT community has gained visibility in the United States since 1970s after the Stonewall Riots. Issues connected with the LGBT community have been however present long before the Riots. In the past, homosexuality had been negatively perceived and persecuted and the term developed a very negative connotation that persists till today. Homosexuality had not been accepted even by law, punishing sodomy and buggery that were associated with homosexual behavior until 2003. Up till that year, sodomy was still a crime in some parts of the United States. In course of the 20th century, homosexuality became more visible in society. Non-heterosexuality1 started to be present in art and started to appear in literature and later in movies (e.g. Miss Fatty, Sylvia Scarlett, The Boys in the Band).

The voice of the non-heterosexual community intensified after the Stonewall

Riots that took place in Manhattan, New York City in 1969. It was a turning point for the non-heterosexual community. It was one of the first broadly publicized homosexual issue in the United States. Since the Riots, the LGBT community has been fighting for their civil rights (e.g. decriminalization, right to marry) and it has been a challenging fight for non-heterosexuals. One of the challenging issues emerged during the 1980s when AIDS first appeared in the United States. This new virus caused much fear and negativity towards homosexuals in society as mostly homosexuals were infected by the virus. Not knowing how the virus transfers and how it can be treated caused panic in society and manifestations of homophobia became more common. Non-heterosexuals thus faced even greater

1 Non-heterosexuality is another term the thesis uses for describing LGBT community and their sexuality and is by no means used in a sense of normativity. 5 challenge to have their rights validated. During the 1990s, new terminology related to non-heterosexuality has begun to appear. The term “LGBT” first appeared, relating to the non-heterosexual community. The LGBT as a minority group has also gained scientific and academic interest and much research into the topic has been carried out.

The fight for civil rights however continues. As Roxanne Henkin said in 2012, “as second-class citizens, LGBTQ persons are [still] denied the basic rights in the

United States to marry the person they love, inherit from each other, be treated as spouses on each other's insurance policies, and to receive pensions and social security from each other.” (112) Furthermore, she claims that “it's estimated that by not being allowed to marry, LGBTQ people lose more than

1,400 federal and state protections by law”. (Roxanne Henkin 112) Although in some states homosexual partners can legally marry or enter into registered partnership, in many states it is still impossible.

Scientists and scholars have started to explore the relation between the LGBT and suicidality2 only recently. In the course of the past 20 years, many scientific and academic studies were carried out, agreeing on the fact that LGBT as a minority group is more likely to engage in suicidal behavior. “These studies typically find support for an association between stressors associated with being

LGBT and poorer mental health.” (Almeida et al) Fewer studies focus on LGBT youth and suicidal behavior, however the same fact about higher rates of suicidality can be applied to LGBT youth as youths are generally more mentally

2 Suicidality is a word the thesis uses in a sense of describing suicidal behavior, suicidal thoughts and other suicidal tendencies. 6 vulnerable as they are still growing up and they are in the process of being shaped by their environment.

The issue of suicidality in LGBT youth gained more attention in 2010. Roxanne

Henkin in her article mentions that “in 2010, a number of suicides resulted in part because of and . They include Tyler Clementi, Asher

Brown, Seth Walsh, Justin Aaberg, Eric Mohat, Meredith Rezak, Raymond

Chase, and Billy Lucas. These students were gay and lesbian and felt that they had no other option than to take their own lives.” (110) These suicides were broadly publicized and prompted not only the research into LGBT youth and related suicidality but they also stimulated the foundation of the currently largest nationwide prevention program for LGBT youth called “”.

Although the project has been supported by many famous people, “IGB’s critical and scholarly reception has been mixed”. (Bryan and Mayock 66) Few studies have been implemented on the project (Derrit Mason, Erica Ciszek 2014) and research shows that the It Gets Better Project may actually do more harm to the

LGBT youth than to help them. I decided to compare the It Gets Better Project to another nationwide prevention program called “”. Certainly, more programs for LGBT youth exist in the United States, for example GLSEN that focuses on improving school environment and conditions for young LGBT students. Another project is called The Young Men Who Have Sex With Men

(YMSM). It is a project under the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention) leadership and its “goal of the YMSM Project is to reduce the risk of

HIV and STD infection in YMSM students (ages 13–19) with a focus on black and

Latino YMSM”. I decided to compare only the It Gets Better Project and the Trevor

Project as they are the two largest and most publicized prevention programs and

7 both are most likely to reach most of LGBT youth. They are easily accessible via the internet and support for LGBT youth can be thus quickly delivered.

The most challenging environment for LGBT youth where they encounter manifestations of homophobia and related issues and may thus develop suicidal behavior is school environment, even though one may find that GSAs (Say-

Straight Alliance), social clubs for students regardless of their sexuality, exist at some schools. “In many states and school districts, LGBT students and teachers lack protections from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. In others, protections that do exist are inadequate or unenforced.”

(“Walking Through Hailstorm”) Not only discrimination but other manifestations of homophobia provide impulses for developing suicidal behavior and threaten

LGBT youth lives. As Bryan and Mayock put it, “the LGBT youth still face and acts of violence that cause “queer unhappiness, suffering, danger and death”. (68)

The topic of LGBT youth suicidality is not yet scientifically and academically widely covered and that is why I decided to choose this topic. The topic provides enough space for discussion and research. Another reason is that the LGBT community issues still carry a stigma not only in USA but also here in Czech

Republic and it is necessary to eliminate this stigma in order to provide better livability to the LGBT community. The LGBT youth suicidality is a contemporary cultural issue that is still shaping history of the United States. In the second chapter of the thesis I will briefly explore the general statement that every LGBT youth is at risk of suicide. In the third part of the thesis I will introduce the terminology concerning LGBT and I will compare the differences in meanings and usage of terms “LGBT”, “homosexual”, “gay” and “queer”. In the fourth chapter I

8 will introduce the term homophobia and I will describe how it manifests in two major environments LGBT youth inhabit: school and family. I will focus more on the school environment problematics as most research has been done in this field. In the fifth part of the thesis I will introduce the two mentioned prevention programs for LGBT youth: The Trevor Project and the It Gets Better Project. I will briefly introduce their background of origin, then give the information about the support they provide and the ways they provide it and then I will compare the two projects and point out the It Gets Better Project’s ineffectiveness and possible danger.

9

Chapter Two: Is truly every LGBT youth at risk of suicidal behavior?

Since the time when the LGBT youth suicidality gained more visibility, it has been a generally accepted fact in the academic sphere and in field of psychology that

LGBT community and especially youths are in greater risk of suicidal behavior than heterosexual youth. Rob Cover in his work also states that “for over twenty years, publications in policy, psychology, sociology, paediatrics and other fields have often stated that non-heterosexual younger persons are at greater risk of suicidal behaviour, ideation, thoughts and acts than youth identifying as heterosexual”. (Unliveable Lives 1) Although the statement seems to be true, after researching deeper into the matter, one can find flaws in such a general statement. It is important to determine whether every LGBT youth is at higher risk of suicidal behavior or not in order to avoid superfluous and untrue generalization.

First, it necessary to state that not every single LGBT youth is at risk since many non-heterosexual youths are accepted and supported by their closest relations and surrounding (family, friends, peers, teachers, neighbors) concerning their sexuality. The statement is thus generalizing and is not relevant for LGBT youth who do not suffer because of their sexuality. What’s more, the statement of every LGBT youth being at risk has been challenged by many academics and psychologists since it accounts the suicidal behavior of LGBT youth strictly with sexuality-related issues and ignoring other factors that might directly cause or contribute to the suicidal behavior. Rob Cover’s statement is challenged by the study of Audrey Bryan and Paula Mayock in which they discover that “among younger participants (those 25 years of age or younger) two thirds had never thought seriously about ending their lives in the previous year, and a further 17%

10 had only rarely thought seriously about suicide” which means that “even among younger LGBT people, the vast majority could not be characterized as being

‘at risk’ of suicide.” (72) Although the study of Bryan and Mayock concern LGBT youth in Ireland, one may assume that even in United States only a part of LGBT youth show suicidal behavior. Roxanne Henkin however in her article states that

“nine out of 10 LGBT students (86.2%) experience harassment at school’ and that ‘sexual minority youth, or teens that identify themselves as gay, lesbian or bisexual, are bullied two-to-three times more than heterosexuals.” (110) Henkin also states that LGBT youth are “up to four times more likely to attempt suicide than their heterosexual peers.” (110) As reported by the study called Youth Risk

Behavior Survey (YRBS) by CDC, “more than 40% of LGB students have seriously considered suicide, and 29% reported having attempted suicide during the past 12 months.” (“Health Risks”) One may find it hard to believe that there is such a difference between LGBT youth in Ireland and their suicidal rates and

LGBT youth in United States and their “four times more” likeliness to attempt suicide. If one was to believe Henkin’s statement, a question may arise whether this number of suicide rate is connected only with youth sexuality or whether it has other contributors.

Further in their study, Bryan and Mayock admit that “suicidality and self-harm are very real features of a significant minority of LGBT people’s lives.” (73) Next,

Bryan and Mayock find out that “less than half (46.7%) of those who had attempted suicide on at least one occasion felt that their first suicide attempt was related directly or primarily (‘very related’ or ‘very much related’) to their LGBT identification.” (73) One can therefore assume that not every suicide attempt of

LGBT youth is connected with their sexuality, although sexuality may play an

11 important part. Rob Cover also admits that “suicide is a product of collective ideas and individual suicidal behaviour; it is produced by a multiplicity of concepts in terms of the relationality of the suicidal agent to a surrounding sociality—that is, suicide is never merely a ‘solo venture’”. (Suicides of the

Marginalised 91) That means that suicidal behavior may sprout not only from one’s sexuality but it has other contributing factors. Cover also claims that the suicidal behavior in LGBT youth he studies “is depicted as having social, external and environmental causes— rather than individualised psychic, mental health, genetic or otherwise pathologised ‘inner’ causes”. (Suicides of the Marginalised

92) Moreover, Cover also explores the idea that “the reliance on queer suicide statistics frequently fails to recognise the context and complexity of the environmental, social, cultural and institutional setting in which suicide becomes thinkable, particularly in ‘snapshot’ public communication and policy dialogue”.

(Suicides of the Marginalised 102) Bryan and Mayock agree and say that youth

LGBT suicides relate to “broad range of overlapping experiences and motivations, which may or may not be related to sexuality”. (72) Rob Cover nevertheless admits that “there is, of course, a statistical link between non- normative sexualities and higher risk of suicidal behaviours”. (Queer Youth

Suicide 2) The YRBS study unfortunately does not explore whether the suicide rates are related purely to sexuality or not, however it is obvious that not every

LGBT attempt or suicidal behavior has to relate only to their sexuality.

It is important to realize that the statement that every LGBT youth is at risk of suicidal behavior is quite overvalued. The truth is that not every single one LGBT youth is at risk, however in general the LGBT youth community is at greater risk

12 of suicidal behavior because of their sexuality. The sexuality might however not be the only factor causing the suicidal behavior in LGBT youth, often is it not the direct cause and it is merely a contributor and in some cases the sexuality has no connection with young LGBT person’s suicidality whatsoever. The reality however is such that the LGBT community and especially youths are at higher risk of suicidal behavior because of their sexuality. As Rob Cover states, “the prevalence of suicide among non-heterosexual youth remains high in contrast to the rate of suicide attempts and completions among younger people who are not identifiably articulating a minority sexuality”. (Suicides of the Marginalised 101)

This thesis is aware of the fact that not every single LGBT youth is at risk of suicidal behavior; however, it accounts the general idea that the LGBT youths are at greater risk than heterosexual youths.

13

Chapter Three: Terminology

Talking about suicide rates of LGBT youth, it is also important to introduce the term “LGBT” itself, to explain its meaning, its connotation and other relations. The term “LGBT” is a relatively new term and it is still evolving. In the past, non- heterosexuality was categorized under one term: “homosexuality”. The term however carries a very negative connotation connected with its development and usage. Other terms that are used for describing non-heterosexuality exist, two of them are widely used: “gay” and “queer”. This chapter will introduce the terminology connected with LGBT and will explain the differences in their meanings and usage.

The term “homosexual” was first used by an Austrian journalist Karl Maria

Kertbeny in 1868 in his correspondence. In English, “homosexuality” first appeared in 1883. At that time, the term “homosexuality” had been circulating only in medical circles. It was defined as “the opposite sexuality” and “inverted desires of an individual”. (Byrne Fone 4) The term started penetrating public sphere around 1920s. The term “homosexual” became more common, describing an individual with the sexual desires for the same gender. During the development of the terms “homosexual” and “homosexuality” both words unfortunately gained a negative connotation. “Homosexuality” started to label not only “inverted desires” but the meaning shifted, “homosexuality” now describing

“perversion” and “perverted desires”. “Homosexual” became a word describing somebody deviant and mentally-ill. Indeed, as Rob Cover states, “The American

Psychiatric Association (APA), which first drew up its classification of diagnoses in 1952, categorised homosexuality as a sociopathic personality disturbance.”

14

(Suicides of the Marginalised 104) APA declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder only in 1973. (Cover 2016, 104) Homosexuality and the negative connotation connected with it has however been present long before the term itself came into being. In the Bible, homosexuality is condemned and described as sin and evil. The Bible says “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” (King James Bible, Leviticus 18-22) The condemnation is based on a natural law of reproduction, in other words, only a male and a female can reproduce and thus create a new life. Also, the story of

Sodom and Gomorrah is related to homosexuality and its negative perception. Its connotation had been thus connected with unacceptability, disdain, evil and fear from the beginning of Christianity.

In modern culture, when homosexuality started to appear in literature and movies, homosexual characters on the screen were often villains and murderers, contributing to the negative connotation of the term (Rebecca, Laura, Rope,

Dressed To Kill). In 1960s the term “homophile” appeared, having the same meaning as “homosexual” and carrying less negative connotation, “homophile” however never became as common as “homosexual” and almost disappeared.

The term is currently used with meaning shifted to “somebody supporting homosexuality”. After the Stonewall Riots the word “homosexuality” became much medialized and became quite visible. During the 1980s when AIDS started to spread, homosexuality became negatively targeted as dangerous. As the gay liberation movement progressed, the usage of terms “homosexual” and

“homosexuality” declined and the terms started to be replaced by new terminology with less negative connotation.

15

As previously said, until gay liberation movement, non-heterosexuality or rather

“homosexuality” has been connected with something undesirable, dangerous and forbidden. The medialization of Stonewall Riots started a revolution in which

LGBT community has been fighting for its rights in gay liberation movement. The revolution has brought a lot of new descriptions for non-heterosexuality. Until then, the public was more familiar only with the term “homosexual”. These new terms provide more specific description of the sexuality and carry less negative connotation than the word “homosexual” itself. These terms include “LGBT”, “gay” and “queer”.

The term “LGBT” is an acronym and it stands for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. “LGBT” started to be widely used in the 1980s and 1990s when the terminology connected with non-heterosexuality became publicly accepted and more used. One may also encounter the acronym GLBT that first appeared during the movement. The acronym captures the progress of inclusion of different groups, starting first with gays and them with lesbians. The order of the letters however changed as lesbians became more involved in the movement and today it is more common to use the acronym LGBT than GLBT. As the movement progressed, more letters started to be incorporated into the acronym

LGBT.

A frequent acronym is LGBTQ, “Q” standing for “queer”, sometimes for “questioning”. Next acronym that keeps appearing is LGBT+ or LGBTQ+, the symbol “+” standing for other sexual and gender minorities. Another term that exists is LGBTQIA, “I” standing for intersexual and “A” for asexual. More complex acronyms exist as well; they are not as popular as those stated above though.

The thesis uses the term “LGBT” as it is most common and causes less

16 confusion. If one is to understand the LGBT terminology, it is necessary to also introduce the rest of the terms describing one’s sexuality. Nowadays, the word

“homosexuality” may refer to both male and female sexuality. The word

“homosexual” is however more used to describe only homosexual male and a homosexual woman is called “a lesbian”. Next term is “bisexual” that was “first used in the nineteenth century” and it referred “to hermaphroditic species—those having both male and female reproductive organs. By 1914, it had begun to be used in the context of sexual orientation.” (New World Encyclopedia) It became more popular since the movement thanks to bisexual activism. The term does not carry as negative connotation as “homosexual” does. “Bisexual” is somebody who has equal sexual desires for both male and female. People sometimes use only “bi” instead of “bisexual”. A ‘transgender’ person is somebody who have a different gender identity than they have been assigned in birth. Such person feels to be somebody else inside a body with non-matching reproductive system. The term may also refer to somebody who has neither specific male nor female features. A “transsexual” is a person who desires to change their physical appearance due to their gender identity or somebody who already underwent the sexual transformation. Some people include cross-dressers or transvestites into this category. “Intersex” is a state or a condition when a person has no specific female or male features. One may thus have both female or male features. ISNA

(Intersex Society of North America) claims that “a person might be born appearing to be female on the outside, but having mostly male-typical anatomy on the inside”. Such person had also been labelled as a “hermaphrodite”, however today both terms are being used separately, “hermaphrodite” regarding a person with mixed sexual organs, whereas “intersex” describing more complex distinction.

17

“Asexuality” is no interest in sexual desires or lack of sexual orientation. Although it suggests otherwise, an asexual may engage in sexual practices even due to the lack of the desire. More terms describing one’s sexuality and gender exist; they are however not as relevant for the thesis as the terms mentioned above.

Homosexuals may be addressed in more ways than just by the term

“homosexual”. There are other terms used to describe a homosexual, one of them is “gay”. The term “gay” existed long before it was related to homosexuality. The word first meant “happy, joyful and pleasant”. According to Daven Hiskey,

“around the early parts of the 17th century, the word began to be associated with immorality”. “Gay” meaning “homosexual” appeared in 1920s. The word “gay” may refer to one’s homosexuality or it may refer to a homosexual person. It also may refer both to men and women. The term is coincident with the meaning of

“homosexuality”, however “gay” became more used because of the negative connotation the term “homosexuality” carries. The term “gay” may carry negative connotation as well though. The term may be used in homophobic remarks, such as “that’s so gay” (McCormack at al. 751), however McCormack mentions that the shift of homophobic language occurred and that it “bonded straight and gay men together” (751), meaning that the word “gay” is carrying less negative connotation than it used to.

Another term that homosexuals may be addressed by is “queer”. The term

“queer” is included in the LGBTQ acronym, the letter “Q” standing for “queer” or sometimes “questioning”. Someone who is “questioning” is still exploring their sexuality and desires. The term “queer” is nowadays also used for describing the whole LGBT community, that means people often use “queer” instead of “gay”.

The terms are however interchangeable. Lori Grisham quotes in her article Cleo

18

Anderson, a young gay rights activist, who also says that “queer means that you are one of those letters (LGBT), but you could be all of those letters and not knowing is OK”. “Queer” is more fluid term that also functions as an umbrella term, unifying all sexualities and genders under one term. In the past, the term carried a negative connotation and was used as a term of abuse, Grisham however in her article claims that “in recent years the LGBT community, particularly younger people, have reclaimed the word”.

The terminology connected with homosexuality is very fluid and still evolving. The usage of the terms “LGBT”, “gay” and “queer” may be interchangeable and the usage depends on the preferences of the user. For example, Paul Katz in his article explains why he feels bothered by the word “queer” and says that “a transgender or polyamorous person is not necessarily a “gay” person and feels as boxed in by that word as [he does] by “queer.”” Furthermore, he says that

““gay” was the most common “non-clinical” term [he] saw used to describe a homosexual”, adding to the argument that the term “gay” is more preferable than the term “homosexual” because of the negative connotation the term

“homosexual” carries. Gary Nunn in his article also explores the language related to LGBT, particularly the word “homosexual” and says that “to stop prejudice- based bullying, gay people need to be normalised - not distanced by language.”

19

Chapter Four: School and Family Environment and Suicidal Factors

It is important to realize that the usage of terminology in relation to LGBT community may be fraught with risk and wrong usage of words may offend or even hurt a member of LGBT community. This wrong usage may come from family upbringing as family environment is what shapes one’s mind the most in the beginning, it is however school environment that subsequently and mostly shapes not only one’s language skills but also social skills. The school environment may be thus quite challenging for LGBT youth as they may be surrounded by peers that address them deliberately in an uncomfortable way or behave in an unfriendly manner. This behavior towards LGBT youth may subsequently cause suicidal behavior. The unfriendly or even hostile behavior towards LGBT youth is called homophobia. It can be generally described as a fear of non-heterosexuality and non-heterosexuals. Homophobic language may be as an “antigay language that is intended to wound another person”.

(McCormack at al. 750) However, homophobia is not only related to fear and language but also hostile and aggressive behavior towards LGBT. The term first appeared between 1960s and 1970s. Byrna Fone says that “one basis for this fear … is the perception that homosexuality and homosexuals disrupt the sexual and gender order supposedly established by what is often called natural law”. (5)

The natural law has not been supported only by scientists but it is also deeply rooted in most religions. If one contemplates about how Christianity condemns homosexuality in the Bible, it becomes obvious that homophobia has been developing and continuing for thousands of years. LGBT foundation on their website state that “although laws have changed, many people's attitudes haven't.

20

Homophobia still exists mainly due to ignorance, but also due to hatred.”

Homophobia is also related with the idea that spread in 19th and 20th century (“11

Ridiculous Methods For ‘Curing’ Homosexuality”) that one chooses to be homosexual and therefore it can be cured. Conversion therapies for non- heterosexuals were quite popular and unfortunately they still exist. Next, the medical usage of the term “homosexuality” in the past has supported the development of homophobia, connecting non-heterosexuality with deviance and perversion. Another thing that contributed to the development of homophobia was the spread of AIDS/HIV in the 1980s during the gay liberation movement. The fear of non-heterosexuality was then supported by the unknown illness that “since the beginning of the HIV epidemic killed about ‘675,000’ people”. (“HIV and AIDS in the USA”)

Even today, homophobia keeps negatively affecting LGBT people’s lives and what’s more, it threatens LGBT youth lives. McCormack and his colleagues point out that “homophobia continues to be a pressing issue in schools”. (McCormack at al. 753) Also, Rob Cover supports the idea that school environment may be very challenging to LGBT youth as he says that the school system “depend so heavily on surveillance, discriminative norms, economies of secrecy and disclosure permit bullying and ostracisation to flourish and become, then, the site of hopelessness in what to many appears at the time as a period of permanency”

(Suicides of the Marginalised 103) and thus contributing to the development of suicidal behavior. Furthermore, the progress towards improving the livability of

LGBT youth is uneven and in many states the laws against discrimination or laws supporting open discussion of one’s sexuality are missing. “This undermines a number of fundamental human rights, including LGBT students’ rights to

21 education, personal security, freedom from discrimination, access to information, free expression, association and privacy.” (“Walking Through Hailstorm”) This chapter will first introduce and describe the factors contributing to suicidal behavior (manifestations of homophobia) that LGBT youth face at school environment and it will also mention another prominent environment where LGBT youth may face homophobia and that is family environment.

Coming back to homophobic language, LGBT youth often face homophobic remarks at school. Being called names and hearing is very common for

LGBT youth. According to The Guardian article, “insults such as “faggot” and

“dyke”’ are remarks ‘that are heard in schools by 80% of teachers” and furthermore that “95% of teachers hear the phrases “you’re so gay” or “that’s so gay” in schools”. (“A Challenge to the Guardian”) The author in his article also contributes to the argument that the term “homosexual” is now impropriate and may hurt and that it is better to use the word “gay”. On one hand, the previous article state hearing remarks by teachers, on the other hand, GLSEN Survey

2011 state that “56.9% of students reported hearing homophobic remarks from their teachers or other school staff, and 56.9% of students reported hearing negative remarks about gender expression from teachers or other school staff.”

(14) It is thus obvious that not only peers but even teachers engage in homophobic language. GSLEN Survey also claims that “81.9% [of students] were verbally harassed (e.g., called names or threatened) in the past year because of their sexual orientation, and 63.9% because of their gender expression.” (14)

Deborah N. Pearlman and Hailee K. Dunn in their study state that 52.7% of the students reported homophobic . (44) Furthermore, Pearlman adds that

“girls are more frequently targets of indirect bullying, such as rumors and gossip

22 stemming from relationship issues like dating, break-ups, and jealousy”. (43)

Murdock and Bolch states that “high school students heard anti-gay slang approximately 25 times a day”. (160) The research on homophobic language results that the usage of homophobic language at schools is very high and very frequent. The homophobic language contributes to the development of feeling lonely, unwanted and unsafe and subsequently may lead to the development of depression and suicidal behavior.

Another major homophobic behavior LGBT youth face at schools is discrimination. As reported by Joanna Almeida and her colleagues in their study,

“youth with a minority sexual orientation were significantly more likely than heterosexual youth to report perceived discrimination (33.7% vs. 4.3%...)”.

Sexual discrimination may be defined as a less favorable treatment because of one’s sexuality or gender. Human Rights Watch (HRW) in their article about

LGBT students explore how students are treated not only by school policies but also by law and say that laws in some states, “often combined with harmful school policies, exposed [those students] to harassment and violence, restricted their access to information and their freedom of expression, and singled them out for discriminatory treatment.” (“US: LGBT Students Face Discrimination”)

Next factor that contributes to suicidal behavior in LGBT youth is bullying. As

Roxanne Henkin puts it, “research shows that because adolescents are discovering themselves, they are especially vulnerable to the peer pressure that often takes the form of bullying.” (110) Pearlman in her research found out that

“boys … are more frequently victims of physical forms of bullying and homophobic messages.” (43) Almeida also mentions the YRBS research and says that “YRBS data from Washington D.C. show that 31% of youth with a minority sexual

23 orientation reported having been bullied over the past year, compared to 17% of heterosexual youth.” Bullying may be described as an aggressive behavior towards a person and it may not be only physical but also mental. Physical bullying may start from uncomfortable touching, pushing and it may evolve into more aggressive manifestation such as kicking, pushing and other kinds of beating. Physical bullying may have many forms, however those stated above are most common. Mental bullying is tightly connected with homophobic language as it includes gossiping and calling names but it also involves emotional blackmailing. The aim of the bully is usually to use one’s emotions and to disturb them and thus lower one’s self-esteem. As a website called NoBullying.com states, “bullying causes low self esteem, and eventually it leads to self destruction

[and] suicide.” (“Mental Bullying”) Another type of bullying that is becoming more common is cyberbullying. Nowadays, with youth using technology every day and being connected to the Internet, it is not surprising that bullying also penetrated the Internet. According to the GLSEN study, “55.2% of LGBT students experienced electronic harassment in the past year (via text messages or postings on Facebook)”. (15) Roxanne Henkin provides different statistics, saying that “in a study of 1,500 Internet using adolescents, 20% were bullied electronically while 28% did not tell anyone, although 41% told a friend”. (110)

Henkin’s statistics seems to include also heterosexual adolescents and to not concern only LGBT youth, however the numbers do not differ so much from the part of YRBS research led by Laura Kann that says that “15.5% of all students;

14.2% of heterosexual students; 28.0% of gay, lesbian, and bisexual students; and 22.5% of not sure students had been electronically bullied”. (15)

NOBullying.com provides another statistics and say that “42 per cent of LGBT

24 youth have experienced cyber bullying”. (“LGBT Bullying Statistics”) Aside from the statistics, the truth remains that “the prevalence of having been electronically bullied [is] higher among gay, lesbian, and bisexual students … and not sure students”. (Laura Kann 15) Cyberbullying is also tightly connected with homophobic language as it commonly includes sending homophobic text messages, insults or unwanted sharing of pictures. As well as bullying, cyberbullying focuses on one’s emotions and aims to cause emotional harm and lower self-esteem.

Social exclusion may be another contributor to the development of suicidal behavior in LGBT youth. Rejection of one’s peers and friends and thus experiencing feelings of loneliness may be according to Rob Cover the most threatening factor as he describes suicide as a “performativity of a gap between the agent’s self-perception as an aspiring and aspirational subject and their self- perception of having a capacity or incapacity to be included in broad populational community”. (Suicides of the Marginalised 92) If an LGBT youth is thus intentionally secluded from the community by others, it is not surprising that the feeling of loneliness may evoke suicidal thoughts and behavior. Rob Cover agrees and says that “the sense of isolation or exclusion from a norm in this perspective produces anxieties which, for some subjects, can be an intolerable emotional pain to the point of unliveability”. (Suicides of the Marginalised 93)

Moreover, Pearlman claims that “youth who do not conform to normative expectations regarding sexuality, gender, and physical appearance are more likely to be rejected by their peers”. (44-5) It is therefore obvious that is one of the factors contributing to the suicidal behavior in LGBT youth.

25

Although may not be considered as one single factor contributing to suicidal behavior as it includes more factors previously mentioned, it is an issue that LGBT youth faces daily in school environment. Peer victimization is a process when one is targeted by a group of peers and becomes a victim of hate crime or violence. This hate crime and violence may include verbal harassment, physical and mental bullying or discrimination. Murdoch and

Bolch says that in general “LGBT youth experience high levels of victimization in public institutional settings, including schools.” (160) Furthermore, they claim that

“while most studies of LBG youth’s school experiences focus mainly on their overt victimization, such as and bullying, few consider more subtle aspects of victimization including exclusion from the mainstream of school life (prom attendance, school events, etc.)”. (160) Peer victimization is thus also related to social exclusion. In their study, Murdoch and Bolch also follow another research that says that “one third of the sample reported being victims of physical assaults, one half of which occurred at school”. (160) Pearlman also explores the issue of peer victimization and states that “teens who identified as a sexual minority …

[are] more likely to experience one or more forms of violence victimization.” (44)

Concerning all the manifestations, peer victimization may be thus labeled as the most prominent factor that contributes to the LGBT youth suicidal behavior.

As the thesis previously stated in this chapter, most prominent environment for developing suicidal behavior in LGBT youth is school environment. It is however also important to state another environment that affect LGBT youth lives and that is family. Family and its supportive environment is the focal point of one’s life and especially for LGBT youth, family support is the most important one. Elizabeth A.

McConnell and her colleagues explored the importance of social support in LGBT

26 youth and found out that family support is indeed very important for LGBT youth, however their findings also concern other social groups support. Nevertheless, their findings show the importance of supporting LGBT youth in order to provide a better livability. (674-680) As family upbringing seeds ideas in one’s mind and shapes their world, youth LGBT sometimes face a challenging conflict between the upbringing of their parents and their sexuality. Parents of LGBT youth may share the same ideas about non-heterosexuality deeply-rooted in past generations. As the religion had and still has a great impact on upbringing, parents still share the idea that non-heterosexuality is sin and evil. This idea is related to the religious upbringing and the idea of homosexuality being unnatural in connection with the natural law of reproduction. This deep-rooted homophobia in one’s parents thus may create a tension in the family mainly when the youth want to come out to the family. First and the most prominent factor that contributes to suicidal behavior in LGBT youth is thus rejection of one’s family.

As Michael Friedman, a Ph.D. psychologist, states in his article, “as many as 50 percent of LGBT teens experience a negative reaction from their parents when they come out; 30 percent experience , and 26 percent are kicked out of their homes.” Friedman also states that LGBT youth who are rejected by their parents are “eight times more likely to have attempted suicide than non- rejected young adult”. The same statistics is also provided by the

NOBullying.com. LGBT youth homelessness is another factor connected with family. When family rejects one’s coming out, they may kick the youth out or the youth may voluntarily leave home. It is estimated that about 40% of homeless youth is identified as LGBT. (“LGBT”) Furthermore, youth.gov also states that

“LGBT youth experience homelessness at higher rates than non-LGBT youth for

27 a range of reasons, including family rejection and abuse, and a history of physical or sexual abuse.” (“LGBT”) Finally, the same article also mentions that “LGBT youth who are homeless also experience high rates of conduct disorder, post- traumatic stress, and suicidal behavior”. There is therefore an obvious connection between family environment and suicidal behavior in LGBT youth. LGBT youth may, of course, face similar factors in family environment to those in school environment, namely bullying, other forms of abuse, verbal harassment or discrimination. Family rejection and possible following homelessness are nevertheless the most prominent suicidal factors for LGBT youth in family environment.

28

Chapter Five: Prevention Programs

After exploring suicidality among LGBT youth and contributing factors, the reader may have acquired an idea that LGBT youth are doomed to suffer and to experience violence without hope. That is however not the case as many programs supporting LGBT youth exist. Historically, the first supportive groups appeared around 1960s (“Key dates”) and more started to appear after the

Stonewall Riots. First programs for LGBT youth however did not appear before

1990s. The first major prevention program focused on LGBT youth was The

Trevor Project. Another prominent prevention program that is nowadays quite visible in the media is the It Gets Better Project. This chapter will introduce these two programs, their history of origin and their structure. Furthermore, the chapter will provide information on ways in which LGBT youth can seek help in these programs and will compare the two programs. Followingly, it will explore the It

Gets Better Project and its possible negative effects on LGBT youth.

As previously mentioned, first major prevention program that focuses on LGBT youth and suicide prevention is called The Trevor Project. It was founded in 1998 by Randy Stone and , following a success of their short film called

Trevor. Stone and Rajski created a short movie Trevor in 1994 with cooperation of the James Lecesne. Trevor introduced the challenges that young LGBT people deal with every day. The story is happening in 1981. A young boy called Trevor faces the ignorance of his parents, peer victimization of his schoolmates and discrimination of his vicinity. Hopeless, Trevor decides to commit suicide by swallowing aspirins. He wakes up in a hospital and after meeting Jack, a boy who supports his sexuality, Trevor decides to live. Following the success of the movie which won an Academy Award for Best Live Action Short Film, Rajski and Stone

29 created the Trevor Project that focuses on ‘crisis intervention and suicide prevention services to LGBTQ teens and young adults’ (“History”).

Nowadays, the Trevor Project is a non-profit nationwide prevention program that every LGBT youth in crisis can turn to. It is aimed at LGBT youth between 13 and 24 years of age. Trevor Project cooperates with experts in fields of psychology, psychiatry, sociology and health. Young LGBT people in crisis can call the 24/7 Trevor crisis line on which they can get the needed psychological support. It is also possible to get help online via Online support center and chat room called TrevorSpace. Getting help via texting is also available. TrevorSpace is also an online space that provides connection with other LGBT youth and

LGBT-friendly people. The Trevor Project also offers educational resources about

LGBT, mental health and suicide prevention for adults that want to work with

LGBT youths in need and help them (not only general public but also school counselor and nurses). The space for education is called the Lifeguard

Workshop. Lifeguard Workshop is constantly training new volunteers who can either work as counselors on their help lines or they can participate in different ways, for example school lectures or pride events. The Trevor Project participate every year in many prides trough United States of America, for example LA pride,

NYC pride, Salt Lake City pride, D.C. youth pride and D.C. trans pride and in many more. The Project also takes interest in school environment and school education about LGBT. According to the site, “The Trevor Project has collaborated to create a Model School District Policy for Suicide Prevention.”

(“Model School Policy”)

Concerning The Trevor Project statistics which they provide in annual reports, The Trevor Project claims that “hundreds of thousands of young people

30 in crisis have reached out to The Trevor Project’s multiple in-person and online life-saving, life-affirming resources”. (“History”) In 2014, the total number of the lifeline calls was 44,985 from which 34,5% were from South region, 25% from

West region, 18% from Midwest region and 6,5% from Northeast region. 59% of the contacts were females, 25% males, 8% transgender. Total amount of completed chats was 8,019 and the number of answered texts was 463.

Compared to 2013 annual report, the number of answered texts grew about

170%. In 2015 at least 200,000 LGBT youths have reached out The Trevor

Project. The staff has answered over 54,000 calls and text messages either in chat room or by mobile phone, 33,4% from South region, 25,7% from West region, 19,9% from Northeast region and 17,3% from Midwest. Concerning the gender of contacts, 54% were female gender, 19% male gender, 13% transgender. Concerning the sexualities of contacts, 22% were questioning, 18% bisexual, 15% lesbian, 13% gay, 13% straight.

Although the annual reports of The Trevor Project go back to 2008, it is evident from the last two annual reports available (2014 and 2015) that the numbers of young LGBT people that contacted the Trevor Project to get help are growing. The number of volunteers participating in the project is growing as well, the increase from 2014 to 2015 was 27.1%. The rise of the numbers both in LGBT youth contacts as well as in volunteers proves that the Trevor Project is a well- established prevention program that efficiently provides help to LGBT youth in need.

The second project focused on LGBT youth is the It Gets Better Project.

The project was founded in 2010 by and his partner as a response to a few LGBT youth suicides (5 suicides of young boys within 3 weeks,

31 previously mentioned in the thesis in the introduction) that have been broadly publicized in media. Savage created a video which was to give hope to young

LGBT people and to send a message that ‘it gets better’. Rob Cover agrees and says that “Savage’s intention was to ‘inspire hope for young people facing harassment’ and to create ‘a personal way for supporters everywhere to tell LGBT youth that … it does indeed get better’”. (Suicides of the Marginalised 103) The

It Gets Better Project states that “it's mission is to communicate to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth around the world that it gets better, and to create and inspire the changes needed to make it better for them.” (“About”) Savage later wrote a book called “It Gets Better: The Book” in order to reach even more

LGBT youth and spread hope.

To date, the It Gets Better Project is based on a video posting support. The project has gained an attention and support of many famous politicians, actors and musical performers; the message has been sent for example by Barack

Obama, Joe Biden, sir Ian McKellen, Jane Lynch or Sia. It Gets Better Project claims to have already shared up to “50,000 user-created videos viewed more than 50 million times”. (“About”) Young LGBT people can find useful information about how to get help on the webpage, including phone number of the National

Suicide Prevention Lifeline or even The Trevor Project Lifeline. Furthermore, supporters can get involved by donating, sharing their story either by video or by text or buying The It Gets Better Project merchandise.

In comparison with the effectiveness of The Trevor Project, one finds many flaws in the It Gets Better Project. Bryan and Maoyck in their study also claim that

“despite its popularity in the public sphere, IGB’s critical and scholarly reception has been mixed”. (66) Telling stories of LGBT youth connected with suffering and

32 suicide indeed has two sides. Focusing on the better one, it is obvious that the intention of the It Gets Better Project is honorable and to spread hope amongst young LGBT people and to increase the awareness of LGBT youth suicidal problematics is necessary in order to improve their livability. On the other hand, one may find many flaws in the It Gets Better Project that may even threaten the

LGBT youth lives.

First issue that is connected with telling LGBT youth that it gets better in the future is that the videos on the It Gets Better Project webpage contain stories of adults and not youths and thus propose an idea that if an adult person shares a video on how they survived youth and that it got better in the adulthood, then the viewing

LGBT youth may acquire the idea that it is simply about surviving and that it will

“always” get better in the adulthood. This idea is however flawed as Roxanne

Henkin says that “LGBTQ people are often treated as second-class citizens, lacking basic civil rights including protections in the workplace”. (110)

Furthermore, Henkin claims that “LGBTQ teachers are doubly vulnerable fearing job loss if they try to protect LGBTQ students from bullies.” (110) Henkin therefore disprove the idea that it always gets better in the adulthood. Rob Cover concerns with the It Gets Better Project as well, saying that “the It Gets Better phenomenon, which is the first time the voices of queer youth on queer youth suicide have been made broadly available and which add a new explanatory framework for queer youth suicide—hopelessness in relation to queer childhood and school environments marked by bullying.” (Suicides of the Marginalised 103) Cover is however mistaken at one point as, also previously mentioned, most of the videos on the It Gets Better Project webpage are made by adults and thus support the idea that it only gets better in the adulthood and youth is simply about enduring

33 the stress. Derrit Mason in his work also deals with the flawed idea that “simply enduring adolescence will result in improved social conditions” and he further claims that “the project addresses itself to troubled queer youth but is ultimately more about the relation between adult-identified storyteller and imagined audience than anything else.” The flaw in the idea becomes obvious as with constant presence of homophobia and related issues in society, even LGBT adults face harassment and acts of violence in their lives. By the It Gets Better

Project more LGBT youths are encouraged to come out of the closet and thus possibly face more suffering. Derrit Mason furthermore says that the project is simply “a venue for adults to work out their anxieties about the relationship between adulthood and queer youth”.

Another issue with the idea behind the It Gets Better Project is that it

“reinforces the idea that queer youth are inevitably prone to suicide and bullying.”

(Derritt Mason) LGBT youth may thus feel as if they should be automatically protected and taken care of. The project thus encourages the idea of LGBT generally being more vulnerable, instead of supporting their self-confidence and addressing the needed social changes for improving the LGBT ‘livability’. Bryan and Mayock also speak of “discursive construction of LGBT youth as ‘always- already victims’” (69) that applies to the It Gets Better Project strategy.

Furthermore, Bryan and Mayock say that “framing of queer youth as victims in need of help, tolerance and inclusion (Talburt et al.,2004) results a preoccupation with protecting LGBT students from harm, as opposed to a preoccupation with heteronormativity as a hegemonic cultural system that must be actively challenged and dismantled”. (69) They thus support the idea that it is important

34 not only to support the LGBT students but also to change the society and to eradicate homophobia.

Bryan and Mayock in their study explore the It Gets Better Project problematics even further, saying that “some commentators are critical of the collective moral panic about queer youth suicide that they feel IGB has generated

… while others maintain that it ironically serves to reproduce the very narratives of risk and vulnerability it purports to dismantle, through an endless repetition of stories of victimization which portray LGBT youth as being in need of salvation”.

(66) Derrit Mason in his work mentions another issue pointed out by Tavia

Nyong’o. Mason quotes Nyong’o and says that “It Gets Better primarily hails an upwardly mobile class of white gay youth while excluding those for whom adulthood does not necessarily bring a reprieve from forms of anti-queer violence—particularly…gender nonconforming and/or trans” people”. (Derrit

Mason). Derritt Mason thus also explores the idea of the It Gets Better Project racial issue.

To conclude, in comparison with The Trevor Project, the research into the

It Gets Better Project shows that the project has too many issues to be called effective. Even the fact that the It Gets Better Project does not provide any statistics or annual reports is startling. The project may eventually do more harm to LGBT youth community than to help them. On the other hand, the It Gets Better

Project is undeniably a project with good intentions and it has possibly helped many LGBT youth and intervened in their suicidal behavior. Nevertheless, in contrast with the Trevor Project, one may easily assume that the It Gets Better

Project is focused more on gaining popularity than it is oriented to help the LGBT youth.

35

Chapter Six: Conclusion

The aim of the thesis was to explore the issue of LGBT youth suicidality and prevention programs that focus on LGBT youth. As the topic of LGBT youth is not yet widely academically covered and the topic is still stigmatized, it was important to draw attention to the issues LGBT youth face. The research concerned terminology related to LGBT, then LGBT youth and factors contributing to the development of suicidal behavior and lastly two prominent prevention programs.

First part of the research briefly explored the general statement that every LGBT youth is at higher risk of suicidal behavior. The thesis found out that although the statement marginalizes certain facts (that not every single LGBT youth is at risk of suicidal behavior and that not every suicidal behavior in LGBT youth is connected with their sexuality), the statement that LGBT youth is at higher risk of suicidal behavior is true.

Next, the research concerned the development of terminology connected with non-heterosexuality. The thesis introduced terms “homosexual”, “LGBT”, “gay” and “queer” and found out that the term “homosexual” carries negative connotation connected with the development of the term. Nowadays, it is more preferable to use the term “gay”, although the usage of the terminology primarily depends on the user. Nevertheless, the thesis pointed out the importance of using the right terminology as wrong usage of language may also contribute to suicidal behavior in LGBT youth.

The thesis also introduced the term “homophobia” and explored what part it plays in lives of LGBT youth. Moreover, the research concerned homophobic manifestations that contribute to the development of suicidal behavior in LGBT

36 youth in school and family environment. Research showed that amongst the most prominent contributors in school environment is verbal harassment connected with homophobic language, discrimination, mental and physical bullying, cyberbullying, social exclusion and peer victimization. Concerning family environment, the major contributor is rejection and possible subsequent homelessness.

Finally, the thesis explored two most prominent prevention programs for LGBT youth, namely The Trevor Project and the It Gets Better Project. The thesis introduced the background and the structure of the projects and compared the projects. Research shows that The Trevor Project is quite effective according to their statistics that grows in number of contacts and volunteers. The Trevor

Project also provides a lifeline which LGBT youth can call any time. The It Gets

Better Project does not provide any statistics or annual reports and it does not provide any direct lifeline for LGBT youth. Furthermore, the research shows that the It Gets Better Project has flaws, namely that it supports the idea of LGBT youth being “ready-victims” and that it shares stories of adults surviving youth instead providing direct help for LGBT youth. The research thus suggests that the

It Gets Better Project may do more harm to LGBT youth than to help them. The thesis suggests further research in the family environment in relation to LGBT youth as less research has been done in this field.

37

Works Cited

“11 Ridiculous, Strange, And Terrifying Gay Conversion Therapy Methods For

‘Curing’ Homosexuality”. The Huffington Post, 2 Feb. 2016,

www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/31/11-conversion-therapy-methods-

curing-homosexuality_n_1068103.html. Accessed 17 Apr. 2017.

“Bisexuality”. New World Encyclopedia, 10 Jun. 2016,

www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Bisexuality. Accessed 17 Apr. 2017.

“Health Risks Among Sexual Minority Youth”. CDC: Centres for Disease Control

and Prevention, 11 Aug. 2016,

https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/disparities/smy.htm. Accessed 19 Apr.

2017.

“HIV AND AIDS IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (USA)”. AVERT:

Averting HIV and AIDS, 27 Mar. 2017, www.avert.org/professionals/hiv-

around-world/western-central-europe-north-america/usa. Accessed 17 Apr.

2017.

“Improving Education, Creating a Better World”. GLSEN, 2017,

www.glsen.org/learn/about-glsen. Accessed 17 Apr. 2017.

“Key dates for lesbian, gay, bi and trans equality”. Stonewall, 26 Jul. 2016,

www.stonewall.org.uk/about-us/key-dates-lesbian-gay-bi-and-trans-

equality. Accessed 18 Apr. 2017.

“LGBT”. youth.gov. youth.gov/youth-topics/runaway-and-homeless-youth/lgbt.

Accessed 18 Apr. 2017.

38

“LGBT Bullying Statistics”. NOBullying.com, 7 Nov. 2016, nobullying.com/lgbt-

bullying-statistics/. Accessed 18 Apr. 2017

“Mental Bullying”. NOBullying.com, 22 Dec. 2015, nobullying.com/mental-

bullying/. Accessed 17 Apr. 2017.

“The Young Men Who Have Sex With Men (YMSM) Project”. CDC: Centers for

Disease Control and Prevention, 1 Sep. 2015,

www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/disparities/ymsm.htm. Accessed 17 Apr. 2017.

“United States: LGBT Students Face Discrimination”. Human Rights Watch, 7

Dec. 2016, www.hrw.org/news/2016/12/07/united-states-lgbt-students-

face-discrimination. Accessed 17 Apr. 2017.

“What is Homophobia?”. LGBT Foundation, 2017,

www.lgbt.foundation/information-advice/hate-crime/what-is-homophobia-/.

Accessed 17 Apr. 2017.

“What Is Intersex”. Intersex Society of North America, 2008,

www.isna.org/faq/what_is_intersex. Accessed 17 Apr. 2017.

Almeida, Joanna et al. “Emotional Distress Among LGBT Youth: The Influence of

Perceived Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation.” Journal of youth

and adolescence, vol. 38, no. 7, 2009, pp. 1001–1014. PMC.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3707280/. Accessed 17 Apr. 2017.

Bryan, Audrey. And Paula Maoyck. “Supporting LGBT Lives? Complicating the

suicide consensus in LGBT mental health research”. Sexualities, vol. 20,

no. 1-2, pp. 65-85, 30 Aug. 2016. PDF file.

39

journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1363460716648099 Accessed 17

Apr. 2017.

Ciszek, Erica. "Cracks in the Glass Slipper: Does It Really “Get Better” for LGBTQ

Youth, or Is It Just Another Cinderella Story?." Journal of Communication

Inquiry, vol. 38, no. 4, Oct. 2014, pp. 325-340. EBSCOhost,

doi:10.1177/0196859914551607. Accessed 26 Apr. 2017.

Cover, Rob. Queer youth suicide, culture and identity: Unliveable lives?, Ashgate,

2012,

www.researchgate.net/publication/286225864_Queer_youth_suicide_cultu

re_and_identity_Unliveable_lives. Accessed 17 Apr. 2017.

---. “Suicides of the Marginalised: Cultural Approaches to Suicide, Minorities and

Relationality”, Cultural Studies Review, vol. 22, no. 2, Sep. 2016, pp. 90-

113,

http://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/journals/index.php/csrj/article/view/4708/5676.

Accessed 17 Apr. 2017

Fone, Byrne. Homophobia: A History, Henry Holt and Company, 2000, Google

Books, https://books.google.cz/books?hl=cs&lr=&id=xB-

z1WUCKOEC&oi=fnd&pg=PR13&ots=ym1-

nUATQG&sig=eK3bD7gqlMVIxr3dU-

MEv0gYy1M&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false. Accessed 17 Apr.

2017.

Friedman, Michael. “The Psychological Impact of LGBT Discrimination”.

Psychology Today, 11 Feb. 2014, www.psychologytoday.com/blog/brick-

40

brick/201402/the-psychological-impact-lgbt-discrimination. Accessed 17

Apr. 2017.

Grisham, Lori. “What does the Q in LGBTQ stand for?” USA Today, 22 Jul. 2016,

www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/06/01/lgbtq-questioning-

queer-meaning/26925563/. Accessed 17 Apr. 2017.

Henkin, Roxanne. “Speaking My Mind: Confronting Bullying: It Really Can Get

Better.” The English Journal, vol. 101, no. 6, 2012, pp. 110–113., JSTOR,

www.jstor.org/stable/23269422. Accessed 17 Apr. 2017.

Hiskey, Daven. “How ‘Gay’ Came to Mean ‘Homosexual’”. Today I Found Out, 25

Feb. 2015, www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/02/how-gay-came-to-

mean-homosexual/. Accessed 17 Apr. 2017.

It Gets Better Project. www.itgetsbetter.org. Accessed 19 Apr. 2017.

Kann, Laura. “Sexual Identity, Sex of Sexual Contacts, and Health-Related

Behaviors Among Students in Grades 9–12 — United States and Selected

Sites, 2015”. Morbidity and Mortality Week Report, vol. 65, no. 9, 12 Aug.

2016, PDF file, www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/65/ss/pdfs/ss6509.pdf.

Accessed 18 Apr. 2017.

Katz, Paul. “Gay Vs. Queer: Labels and Limitations”. The Huffington Post, 10

Feb. 2017, www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-katz/gay-vs-queer-labels-and-

l_1_b_9195714.html. Accessed 17 Apr. 2017.

Kosciw, Joseph G, et al. “The 2011 National School Climate Survey”. GLSEN,

2012. PDF file. files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED535177.pdf. Accessed 17 Apr.

2017.

41

Mason, Derritt. “On Children’s Literature and the (Im)Possibility of It Gets Better”,

ESC Journal, vol. 38.3-4, University of Alberta, Dec. 2012, pp. 83-104, PDF

file,

ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/ESC/article/viewFile/24870/18325.

Accessed 17 Apr. 2017.

McConnell, Elizabeth A., at al. “Families Matter: Social Support and Mental

Health Trajectories Among Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender

Youth”. Journal of Adolescent Youth, vol. 59, 2016, pp. 674-680,

http://ac.els-cdn.com/S1054139X16302476/1-s2.0-S1054139X16302476-

main.pdf?_tid=2e81ae1c-2455-11e7-8ec0-

00000aacb35d&acdnat=1492533573_61293a5281f51dd9f9c783b1c3303a

0d. Accessed 18 Apr. 2017.

McCormack at al. “Gay guys using gay language: friendship, shared values and

the intent-context-effect matrix”. The British Journal of Sociology, vol. 67,

no. 4, pp. 747-67, 2016, onlinelibrary.wiley.com/wol1/doi/10.1111/1468-

4446.12203/full. Accessed 17 Apr. 2017.

Murdock, Tamera B., and Megan B. Bolch. “Risk and Protective Factors for Poor

School Adjustment in Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual (LGB) High School Youth:

Variable and Person-Centered Analyses”. Psychology in the Schools, vol.

42, no. 2, 2005, pp. 159-72, PDF file,

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pits.20054/epdf. Accessed 18 Apr.

2017

Nunn, Gary. “A challenge to the Guardian: it's time to drop the word

'homosexual'”. The Guardian, 18 Nov. 2011,

42

www.theguardian.com/media/mind-your-language/2011/nov/18/mind-your-

language-word-homosexual. Accessed 17 Apr. 2017.

Pearlman, Deborah N., and Hailee K. Dunn. “Exploring the co-occurrence of

bullying victimization, homophobic teasing and teen dating violence:

Implications for prevention programs”. Rhode Island Medical Journal, vol.

99, no. 8, pp. 43-5, Aug. 2016, PDF file.

www.rimed.org/rimedicaljournal/2016/08/2016-08.pdf. Accessed 17 Apr.

2017.

The Holy Bible. King James Version. PDF file.

www.gasl.org/refbib/Bible_King_James_Version.pdf. Accessed 17 Apr.

2017.

The Trevor Project. 2017. www.thetrevorproject.org. Accessed 19 Apr. 2017.

Thoreson, Ryan. “Like Walking Through a Hailstorm”. Human Rights Watch, 7

Dec. 2016, www.hrw.org/report/2016/12/07/walking-through-

hailstorm/discrimination-against-lgbt-youth-us-schools. Accessed 17 Apr.

2017.

43

The thesis focuses on factors contributing to the development of suicidal behavior in LGBT youth in the school environment, namely verbal harassment, discrimination, mental and physical bullying, cyberbullying and peer victimization.

It also compares two most prominent prevention programs for LGBT youth, namely The Trevor Project and the It Gets Better Project. The thesis also deals with terminology describing non-heterosexuality and its development and connotation. The aim of the thesis is to prove that LGBT youth is at higher risk of suicidal behavior, to introduce the factors causing or contributing to suicidal behavior and to point out flaws in the It Gets Better Project.

Práce se soustředí na faktory přispívající k rozvoji sebevražedného chování u

LGBT mladistvých ve školním prostředí, konkrétně na verbální obtěžování, diskriminaci, psychickou a fyzickou šikanu, kyberšikanu a na viktimizaci. Dále porovnává dva nejznámější preventivní programy pro LGBT mladistvé, „The

Trevor Project“ a „It Gets Better Project“. Práce se také zabývá terminologií popisující ne-heterosexualitu, jejím vývojem a konotací. Cílem této práce je dokázat, že LGBT mladiství jsou vice náchylní k sebevražednému chování, představit faktory vyvolávající nebo přispívající k sebevražednému chování a upozornit na nedostatky „It Gets Better“ projektu.

44