“That's So Gay!”: A Study of the Deployment of Signifiers of Sexual and Gender Identity in Secondary School Settings in Australia and the United States

2004 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 289-308 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary Louise Rasmussen
Author(s):  
Christy Mallory ◽  
Brad Sears

LGBT people in the United States continue to experience discrimination because of their sexual orientation and gender identity, despite increasing acceptance of LGBT people and legal recognition of marriage for same-sex couples nationwide. This ongoing discrimination can lead to under- and unemployment, resulting in socioeconomic disparities for LGBT people. In addition, empirical research has linked LGBT health disparities, including disparities in health-related risk factors, to experiences of stigma and discrimination. Currently, federal statutes in the United States do not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity in employment, housing, or public accommodations, leaving regulation in this area primarily to state and local governments. This creates a limited and uneven patchwork of protections from discrimination against LGBT people across the country. Despite public support for LGBT-inclusive non-discrimination laws across the country, in 28 states there are no statewide statutory protections for LGBT people in employment, housing, or public accommodations. To date, only 20 states and the District of Columbia have enacted comprehensive non-discrimination statutes that expressly prohibit discrimination based on both sexual orientation and gender identity in all three of these areas. One additional state has statutes that prohibit sexual orientation discrimination, but not gender identity discrimination, in these areas. One other state prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in employment and housing, but not in public accommodations. In states without statutes that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and/or gender identity, there are other policies that afford LGBT people at least some limited protections from discrimination. In some of these states, state executive branch officials have expanded non-discrimination protections for LGBT people under their executive or agency powers. For example, in three states, state government agencies have expanded broad protections from sexual orientation or gender identity discrimination through administrative regulations. And, in 12 states without statutes prohibiting discrimination against LGBT people, governors have issued executive orders that protect state government employees (and sometimes employees of state government contractors) from discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. In addition, local government ordinances provide another source of protection from discrimination; however, these laws are generally unenforceable in court and provide much more limited remedies than statewide non-discrimination statutes. In recent years, lawmakers have increasingly attempted to limit the reach of state and local non-discrimination laws, which can leave LGBT people vulnerable to discrimination. For example, some states have passed laws allowing religiously motivated discrimination and others have passed laws prohibiting local governments from enacting their own non-discrimination ordinances that are broader than state non-discrimination laws. While most of these bills have not passed, the recent increase in the introduction of these measures suggests that state legislatures will continue to consider rolling back non-discrimination protections for LGBT people in the coming years. Continued efforts are required at both the state and federal levels to ensure that LGBT people are fully protected from discrimination based on their sexual orientation and gender identity throughout the United States, including federal legislation and statewide bills in over half the states.


2021 ◽  
pp. e1-e3
Author(s):  
Michael Liu ◽  
Jack L. Turban ◽  
Kenneth H. Mayer

Over the past decade, the United States has made substantial progress in advancing the rights of sexual and gender minority (SGM) people. In 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) decision in Obergefell v. Hodges provided same-sex couples the fundamental right to marry across the United States.1 In 2020, the landmark Bostock v. Clayton County decision extended the interpretation of “on the basis of sex” under title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to prohibit workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.2 This sweeping decision sets the precedent that other sex-based antidiscrimination laws should be interpreted to include SGM people. However, explicit and broad protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity are not common features of federal laws, and existing SGM protections remain tenuous, as they rely on judicial interpretation. With recent shifts in the composition of SCOTUS, there is the increasing possibility that the hard-earned protections for SGM people in the United States will be reversed through recently argued and upcoming cases. Based on the available empirical evidence, we are concerned about the possible physical and mental health sequelae. (Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print May 20, 2021: e1–e3. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2021.306302 )


2021 ◽  
pp. 088626052110567
Author(s):  
Justin E. Lerner ◽  
Jane J. Lee

Transgender and gender diverse (TGD) Asian Americans in the U.S. have multiple stigmatized identities, yet their experiences of violence and discrimination are not well understood. We utilized the 2015 United States Trans Survey, the largest survey to date with U.S. TGD people, to study the experiences of TGD Asian Americans. Our study included 699 TGD Asian Americans who experienced violence and discrimination in the form of unequal treatment, verbal harassment, and physical attack. We assessed how experiences differed by sociodemographic characteristics, including birthplace, income, age, education, disability, gender identity, and region. We also explored how family support was associated with experiences of violence in the sample. Bivariate analyses and multivariable regressions were used to understand how sociodemographic variables and family support are linked to experiences of violence and discrimination. Results indicated that income, age, disability, gender identity, and family support are significantly associated with violence and discrimination. As TGD Asian Americans currently experience high levels of violence and discrimination due to transphobia and a rapidly rising anti-Asian bias stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic, efforts to better understand factors that may increase vulnerability and identify how family support can mitigate those experiences are imperative.


Author(s):  
David Fischer ◽  
L. Boyd Bellinger ◽  
Stacey S. Horn ◽  
Shannon L. Sullivan

Supporting transgender and gender-nonconforming children and adolescents represents a challenge to schools and districts that are not prepared to do so. While much of the conversation focuses on the need for anti-bullying and anti-harassment policies, often what is left out are the support and accommodations necessary that allow transgender and gender-nonconforming children and adolescents to thrive, such as gender-neutral bathrooms, record keeping, name and pronoun usage, and gender-segregated activities. This chapter explores the process used by one safe schools organization in the United States to advocate for inclusive policies and the backlash that ensued when an opposition group began organizing against the passage of the policies. A summary of the process for passing the policies and subsequent organizing efforts to protect the district employee who supported the policies, along with the policies themselves, leads to implications for future organizing efforts.


Author(s):  
Diederik Janssen

The intersecting of masculinity studies and childhood studies since the 1990s has been expansive. Questions of gender have increasingly invoked questions of development, and demarcating boyhood has become a problem central to gender studies, indexical to more encompassing riddles of temporal masculinities and masculine temporalities. Motivation for theory and research on boyhood masculinities shifted considerably during the 20th century, from psychoanalysis and the popular reformatory “boyology” scene (first half of the 20th century) to the social and medical psychology of sex roles and gender dysphoria (1960s and 1970s) and gender identity disorder (1980s) to the current (1990s–2010s) culture wars over Schooling, Medicalization, sexual abuse and harassment, and heteronormativity. In the early 21st century, attention to boyhood masculinities derives its largest impetus from a heterogeneous spectrum of increasingly mainstreamed controversies, prominently including gender gaps and gender-specific drops in enrollment, literacy, performance, and retention, and purportedly related feminization or demasculinization of education (see Schooling: “Boy Problem,” “Boy Turn,” and Feminization). All of these controversies show a heavy Anglo-American slanting, with most publications emerging from the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada. Sections in this article provide an orientation to general academic venues (Encyclopedias, Journals, Synoptic Works) for introductory reading. Development of Gender Identity/Difference, Cross-Cultural and Non-Western Studies, Boys’ Geographies, and Ethnographies illustrate the broad angle of boyhood studies, while Historical Studies covers major Anglo-American (United States, Britain and Ireland, Canada, Australia) and emergent (Africa, Asia) contexts for scholarship. Other sections follow thematic interests more or less familiar to childhood studies researchers (Schooling, Sexualities, Representations and Mediations, Medicalization, Toys, Material Culture, and Technology). A separate section Boys’ Literature offers general, American historical, and British historical resources.


2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (40) ◽  
pp. eaba6910 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew R. Flores ◽  
Lynn Langton ◽  
Ilan H. Meyer ◽  
Adam P. Romero

Do sexual and gender minorities (SGMs) in the United States encounter disproportionate rates of victimization as compared with their cisgender, heterosexual counterparts? Answering this question has proved elusive because nationally representative victimization data have not included victims’ sexual orientation or gender identity. The National Crime Victimization Survey, the nation’s primary source of representative information on criminal victimization, began documenting sexual orientation and gender identity in 2016 and released data publicly for the first time in 2019. We find SGMs disproportionately are victims across a variety of crimes. The rate of violent victimization for SGMs is 71.1 victimizations per 1000 people compared with 19.2 victimizations per 1000 people for those who are not SGMs. SGMs are 2.7 times more likely to be a victim of violent crime than non-SGMs. These findings raise the importance of further considering sexual orientation and gender identity in victimization and interventions.


ILR Review ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 73 (3) ◽  
pp. 573-599 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher S. Carpenter ◽  
Samuel T. Eppink ◽  
Gilbert Gonzales

This article provides the first large-scale evidence on transgender status, gender identity, and socioeconomic outcomes in the United States, using representative data from 35 states in the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), which asked identical questions about transgender status and gender identity during at least one year from 2014 to 2017. More than 2,100 respondents, aged 18 to 64 years, identified as transgender. Individuals who identify as transgender are significantly less likely to be college educated and less likely to identify as heterosexual than are individuals who do not identify as transgender. Controlling for these and other observed characteristics, transgender individuals have significantly lower employment rates, lower household incomes, higher poverty rates, and worse self-rated health compared to otherwise similar men who are not transgender.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document