Handbook for Working With Children and Youth

Bent But Not Broken: Exploring Queer Youth Resilience

Why is it relevant to include a chapter on lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB)
1

youth in a text on

resilience? What are the reasons for drawing a connection between the lives of LGB youth and the theories of resilience? In most ways, after all, regardless of where they live, queer youth are just like heterosexual youth: They come from all ethnic, religious, and socioeconomic backgrounds, and they share the same skills, interests, and physical attributes (Savin-Williams, 2001). They grow up both within and outside of families of origin, they navigate popular culture demands and peer dynamics, they cope with disappointments and uncertainties, and they prepare for their futures. Yet the contexts within which these developmental experiences occur are fundamentally different. challenges LGB youth face. A few examples follow:
2

So are the

In 1999, Canadian Justice Minister Anne McLellan promised necessary changes to the Criminal Code to protect gays and lesbians under hate propaganda laws in the coming months. No changes have yet occurred. 3 In November 2001, Aaron Webster, a young gay man, was beaten to death in Vancouver. Lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgendered people are excluded from federal hate propaganda laws, making it legal to promote hatred against our communities.

In April 2002, the Durham Catholic School Board in Ontario denied Marc Hall the right to bring his same-sex partner to his high school graduation dance. The Ontario Supreme Court upheld his right to do so, and Marc did take his partner to the prom.

On November 27, 2003, Canadian Alliance MP Larry Spencer claimed there is a wellorchestrated conspiracy in Canada designed to seduce and recruit young boys. He advised that homosexuality should be recriminalized (Egale Calls on Alliance Party, 2003).

The headline of a letter to the editor published in the Abbotsford Times, in the Fraser Valley of British Columbia recently read: If we allow gay marriage, is legal rape next? (MacQueen, 2004, p. 30)

Youth riding on the Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Youth Project float in the 2004 Pride Parade in Halifax, Nova Scotia, were taunted by a group of spectators; after the parade, a female member of the Youth Project was punched in the face by one of the male spectators.

This chapter begins with a review of the sociopolitical context in contemporary North American society as it relates to homophobia and heterosexism, then moves to an exploration of significant challenges faced by LGB youth in an effort to locate how this population creates and enacts resilience. Resilience herein is defined as an ongoing process of engagement between self and community, consisting of series of interactions and reflections that contribute to surviving adversity and living well (Ungar, 2004). The Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Youth Project, located in Nova Scotia, is highlighted as an example of programming that opens spaces for young people to experiment with and experience ways to cope with threats to them that result from their sexual orientation. The life stories of young people involved with the Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Youth Project are woven throughout this chapter, connecting salient points in the literature with the lived experience of youth.

HOMOPHOBIA AND HETEROSEXISM

Any discussion of the lives of LGB youth must necessarily begin with analysis of the context of homophobia and heterosexism that has been and continues to be pervasive around the world. The challenges faced and particular coping strategies chosen by LGB youth do not result from individual pathology or deficiency but, rather, have to do with oppressive societal conditions associated with heterosexism and homophobia. By context, then, we mean the social and political conditions surrounding the lives of young LGB people that bring with them unique meanings and consequences to those lives. At the same time, we recognize that both homophobia and heterosexism are themselves human creations, or constructions, borne of particular, prevailing, and legitimized belief systems, or dominant ideologies. In this chapter, the concepts of context and construct are closely linked, given that the societal contexts within which LGB youth live are comprised of societal constructs. A term coined by the psychologist George Weinberg in the late 1960s, homophobia is generally defined as the irrational fear and hatred of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people, their behaviors, choices, and lives (Weinberg, 1972). It has also been taken to include any belief system that supports negative myths and stereotypes about same-sex attraction and couples (Mihalik, 1991). The reported intent of this definition was to remove stigma from the LGB person and, rather, pathologize the person holding the antigay attitudes and beliefs. However, there have been difficulties with the concept since the outset. Some researchers, notably psychologists, assert that to use the phobia suffix implies a psychological condition, which is not primarily the case here. Others have argued that, given the ideological and societal context that supports misinformation about, exclusion of, and intolerance toward LGB persons, there is little irrationality about these negative attitudes and beliefs. Indeed these attitudes and beliefs are reinforced in myriad ways, and use of the term homophobia, given its focus on

individual thoughts and feelings, diverts attention from a necessary macroanalysis of institutional and systemic prejudice toward LGB persons.
4

Unlike classic phobias, homophobia has some basis in a logic

that has been construed and constructed and that has a distinct political agenda (Eliason, 1995). Expressions of homophobia range along a continuum from attitudes of exclusion and intolerance to verbal targeting and harassment to physical manifestations of assault and murder. Rather than the personal opinions of a subset of the general population, the prevalence and meanings of homophobia have profound social significance and intersect in complex ways with patriarchy, sexism, and heterosexism. Heterosexism refers to institutionalized and cultural homophobia: the legitimization of prejudice on the basis of nonheterosexual orientation through overt social practices and systems and covert social mores and customs (Appleby & Anastas, 1998; Herek, 1984, 2000; Pharr, 1988; Sanders & Kroll, 2000). Dominant ideologies regarding sexual expression, behavior, and identity assert the preference of heterosexuality over other alternatives. Beyond social mores and customs, heterosexism refers to the legitimized enforcement of compulsory heterosexuality
5

and bestows entitlement and social

acceptance on all those who correspond with its expectations. Heterosexism is the unspoken and unconscious assumption, for example, that my neighbor is heterosexual unless and until demonstrated or articulated otherwise; homophobia is the feeling of disgust on my hearing that, indeed, she is lesbian. Heterosexism ensures that there are no checks and balances on the many potential expressions of homophobia. In ways both explicit and implicit, it allows a culture of sexual prejudice to continue without threat.

ROOTS OF HOMOPHOBIA AND HETEROSEXISM

The meanings and implications among heterosexism, homophobia, patriarchy, and sexism are overlapping and expansive, and they all begin with recognition of the use of power and control to establish and maintain dominant ways of thinking.
6

A sociopolitical analysis suggests that, in Western

thought, power is embedded within the notion of hierarchy; that is, power of one idea, person, or thing over another, resulting in oppression and othering of the entity on the lower end of the hierarchy. Oppression, the core concept of which is press, is both outcome and process: It consists of collective personal experiences located in the structures that determine and maintain a particular ordering of societal relationships. Something pressed is something caught between or among forces and barriers which are so related to each other that jointly they restrain, restrict or prevent the thing's motion or mobility (Frye, 1983, p. 2). Oppression is at the same time overt, blatant, and unmistakable, as well as insidious, covert, and easily overlooked. It is organized violence at the top that permits individual violence at the bottom (Weick & Vandiver, 1982, cited in Dalrymple & Burke, 1995, p. 15). It is the manifestation of an ideology so pervasive that for the dominant, at least, it can go unrecognized, both as process and as outcome. Ideology, political systems, and economic structures form a powerful triumvirate of social control. This weblike system of restraint and immobility requires classification into easily discernible categories and the ordering of such categories within a hierarchy that confers superiority and inferiority. Domination allows for a systematic valuing of human worth, wherein the powerful are bestowed with

the positioning and authority to include or exclude based on this determination. Privileges and normative expectations are ascribed according to one's role within the hierarchy, and the perpetuation of the hierarchy is made feasible through the development of social systems that see such ordering as natural and, in Christian cultures, God given. Exclusion inherently necessitates othering, the designation for those who are deemed without merit for inclusion. It has been suggested that the social system within which children first learn about differential access to power, which is the gravity for societal values, is in the family home (hooks, 1984). It is here that children learn about status, voice, representation, relationships, and positioning relative to power, as well as the manifestations and consequences of choices that comply with or contradict uses of dominant discourses of power. It is in this form of the family where most children first learn the meaning and practice of hierarchical, authoritarian rule. Here is where they learn to accept group oppression against themselves as nonadults, and where they learn to accept male supremacy and the group oppression of women. Here is where they learn that it is the male's role to work in the community and control the economic life of the family and to mete out the physical and financial punishments and rewards, and the female's role to provide the emotional warmth associated with motherhood while under the economic rule of the male. Here is where the relationship of superordination-subordination, of superior-inferior, or masterslave is first learned and accepted as natural. (hooks, 1984, p. 36) Within this analysis, two relationships begin to emerge more clearly. First, there is a conceptual and practical relationship between heterosexism, homophobia, and sexism. The family system described above indicates the subtle yet pervasive reinforcement of compulsory heterosexuality, gender role distinction, and the risks of nonconformity within this paradigm. Where heterosexism is the ideology and homophobia the system of thoughts, behaviors, and attitudes keeping it the paradigm in place, patriarchy is the ideology of male supremacy and control, and sexism is the system of thoughts, behaviors, and attitudes maintaining the paradigm's prevalence (Pharr, 1988). The conceptual and practical overlap between heterosexism, homophobia, and sexism is exemplified through the hate speech directed toward males that equates acting like a girl or in conventionally feminine ways, with being gay (Plummer, 2001; Tolman, Spencer, Rosen-Reynoso, & Porche, 2003). Both being perceived as gay and perceived as femalelike are considered the ultimate insult for boys and men and evidence of failure to adhere to compulsory heterosexuality, which is a cornerstone of patriarchy, and thus these must be met with swift and mighty derision. Sexism is the principle underlying this configuration: elaborate cultural, societal, and economic structures designed to denigrate the female under male superiority (Frye, 1983; Pharr, 1988). Samesex affection and attraction practically (if not ideologically) reject such a notion, therefore inherently challenging the bases on which society is meant to maintain itself: patriarchy, heterosexuality, and sexism, hooks (1984) asserts that sexism is the site of domination experienced by most people, either as oppressor or oppressed, and that we experience it before we know or experience other oppressions. Ideologies of sexuality and gender are woven within and around sexism: Expectations for gender roles and heterosexual activity are communicated overtly and covertly and are the ways and means through which girls and boys learn the values, beliefs, and customs of conventional masculinity and femininity. Some say that to be heterosexual is to meet the basic expectation of gender socialization, given that, from the outset, regardless of the other characteristics one has, choices one

makes, and behaviors one engages in, if one does not conform with being heterosexual, one is already violating the dominant discourse of gender (Appleby & Anastas, 1998). Unlike other social prejudices, homophobia and heterosexism are most often first learned in the family home. Contrast, for example, that experiences and awareness of racism and clas-sism are generally first encountered on entering the outside social world (Blumenfeld, 1992). Home can remain, then, a haven to which to return for a sense of shared identity, culture, and meaning, a place to combat the ignorance, hostility, hatred, and violence prevalent in the wider community. No such comfort is ensured in the home of LGB youth, who include this divergence in family identity as a significant source of distress and isolation (Flowers & Buston, 2001).

THE CENTRALITY OF CONTEXT

Analysis of this societal landscape is critical to understanding the context within which LGB youth live their lives and must precede discussion of the risk factors faced and coping strategies employed by this population. A research focus on alcohol and drug abuse, suicide, self-harm, and prostitution, devoid of analysis of the societal context of heterosexism, homophobia, patriarchy, sexism, and the call to comply with conventional and narrow gender expectations dangerously and inappropriately pathologizes and segregates LGB youth. Being LGB is not inherently reflective of psychic distress, mental illness, or other social problems, yet LGB people have often been studied as a problematic population, on the basis of engagement in the above-named behaviors. Alternately, LGB youth have been subsumed within the heterosexual youth population out of ignorance. Neither approach is cognizant of, nor responsive to, the myriad ways through which LGB youth resist oppression and enact their resilience. Much as we recognize and assess evidence of the many societal constructs that marginalize and oppress LGB young people as central themes in our analysis, we are wary of casting these features as nonnegotiable and rigid in their impact on society's citizens. Young LGB people's lives inform us on a daily basis that these structures are not irrevocably fixed. At the same time as acknowledging and fully appreciating their weight, we need to appreciate the lived reality that LGB youth can and do act to transform their situations as a marginalized group and maneuver for better positions on a daily basis. Every day, LGB youth find ways to overcome the structural obstacles that permeate society, as the stories included here attest. Thus, although there is much to critique and dominant ideology and discourse is indeed pervasive, there is also much to celebrate. The effects of structural inequalities do not necessarily saturate the daily lives of young LGB people. Some theorists posit that young LGB people are growing up in a social climate less oppressive than earlier generations, with qualitative data suggesting that some LGB youth consider themselves more alike than dissimilar to their non-LGB peers (Eccles, Sayegh, Fortenberry, & Zimet, 2003). Furthermore, the diversity of life experiences within this and any other population means that experiences of life obstacles, ideologies, and societal structures necessarily vary from person to person, according, minimally, to ethnicity, class, and gender (Savin-Williams, 2001). There is great diversity among this population, and we are wary not to invoke an essen-tialized community of LGB youth. We do not assume that what difficulties one faces, all will face, and in the same manner.

Homogenizing of the LGB population has occurred on three notable levels. First, subsumed under a macro youth narrative, there has been the homogenization that all young people, variously aged between 12 and 19 years, are considered to be developmentally progressing at the same time and speed, regardless of the social locations of race, class, and sex. Early research and modular development theories of identity formation during adolescence exemplify this trend (see, e.g., Erikson, 1963, 1968). Second, studies that compare LGB youth with heterosexual youth imply through their design that the two populations are distinct. Such research wrongly labels youth as LGB or as questioning or same-sex attracted, which may or may not connote homosexual orientation (SavinWilliams, 2001). Third, studies related to LGB youth have frequently applied findings of studies with gay boys to lesbian girls, erasing the implications of sex and gender. Finally, we resist the draw to characterize the lives of LGB youth as fully knowable and reducible to discrete variables revealed for our examination, although much of the literature is organized in this way. Although there can be great understanding facilitated, solidarity achieved, and comfort generated through the predictability and certainty available by quantifying the rich experiences of people's lives, in so doing we run several risks. First, the task of categorizing or labeling a person is vulnerable to making one-dimensional a multidimensional life and assuming a fixed rather than fluid identity. There are some who assert that affixing any category as well as abbreviating that category is to further oppress the LGB person, for that which we choose to name becomes prioritized, and the choice is inherently political. To be gay means belonging to a class of individuals who are subject to hate crimes, prejudice and stereotypes it is to be expected that some adolescent might choose to describe not their sexual identity but their sexual desires or attractions (e.g., I'm attracted to women). (Savin-Williams, 2001, p. 11) As a parallel point, many researchers have asserted that sexual identity and same-sex attraction are evolutionary phenomena and that traditional identity development models, including coming-out models (see, e.g., Cass, 1979; Troiden, 1989), suggest a linear progression and causal relationships that are not useful for spiral, reflective learning and living processes. Although we have surveyed the literature and we include life story vignettes, and we hope that this exploration is helpful in understanding the layers of richness that may contribute to resilience among LGB youth, we fully embrace that there is no one way to live well within one's environment.

HETEROSEXISM AND HOMOPHOBIA: WHERE THEY CAN LEAD

Expressions of homophobia and heterosexism stigmatize, isolate, and thereby traumatize LGB youth during critical stages of their development (Bagley & D'Augelli, 2000). Correspondingly, many LGB youth speak of their adolescence as a time filled with anxiety, isolation, and fear. Experiences of homophobia and heterosexism put LGB youth at risk for dropping out of school, suicide, drug and alcohol abuse, physical and verbal abuse, homelessness, and prostitution (Bagley & Tremblay, 1997; D'Augelli, Pilkington, & Hershberger, 2000; Grossman, 1997; Remafedi, Farrow, & Deisher, 1991; Remafedi, French, Story, Resnick, & Blum, 1998; Savin-Williams, 1994; Uribe & Harbeck, 1992).

Because homophobia and heterosexism continue to be largely unchallenged in contemporary society, LBG youth frequently face overt discrimination without intervention from others. The Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network's (GLSEN) survey of LGB and transgender students across the United States reported that 83% had been verbally harassed and 42% had been physically harassed in school, with 84% of high school students hearing the words faggot or dyke in the classroom frequently or often (GLSEN, 2001). Concluding their study, they assert that despite the benefits of sexual diversity education, schools remain reluctant to address lesbian and gay issues, particularly in curricula aimed at youth aged 12 to 16 years (GLSEN, 2001). Another American study concurred with these findings, with 86% of the students reporting that school officials rarely or never challenged this type of harassment (Peters, 2003). The international group Human Rights Watch reported in 2001 that the public school system in the United States had repeatedly and uniformly failed to protect LBG and transgender students (Human Rights Watch, 2001). Correlated with this abuse and lack of validation from school staff, LGB, transgender, and questioning youth are 2 to 5 times more likely to drop out of school than their heterosexual counterparts ( Nuggets, 1998). The heightened rate of suicide among LGB and bisexual youth has been well documented in the literature (see, e.g., Bagley & Tremblay, 1997; D'Augelli etal., 2000; Remafedi etal., 1991; Remafedi etal., 1998). Gibson (1989) found that in the United States, lesbian and gay youth make up between 30% and 60% of all completed youth suicides. In Canada, a study at the University of Calgary found that LGB youth are 13.9 times more likely to commit suicide than heterosexual youth (Bagley & Trembley, 1997). Factors including social isolation, lack of affirming and validating support services, alienation from family and friends, and gender nonconformity have been noted as contributing to this heightened suicide risk. D'Augelli et al. (2000) assert that gender atypical males encounter more physical and verbal abuse related to their suspected sexual orientation than do males who conform more closely to society's concept of masculinity and are therefore better able to hide. Remafedi et al. (1991) and Remafedi et al. (1998) have linked gender nonconformity and subsequent homophobic abuse to an increased risk of suicide. The predominance of research supports the notion that most LGB youth are aware of their sexual orientation early in their adolescent development, with many self-identifying by the age of 16 (Ryan & Futterman, 1997). However, many of these young people do not disclose their orientation to others until later in their lives because of fear of stigmatization and harassment. This is particularly true in the case of disclosure to family members (D'Augelli, Hershberger, & Pilkington, 1998). Research has shown that the majority of these young people face mistreatment by family members after their sexual orientation is disclosed. As a result, many are either forced to leave home by their family or choose to leave because of safety concerns (Savin-Williams, 1994). There are corresponding elevated levels of homelessness among this population: conservative estimates indicate that 25% to 40% of homeless youth are LGB (Ryan & Futterman, 1997). It is anticipated, however, that this percentage is significantly lower than the reality because many of these young people choose to mask their orientation out of fear of further stigmatization (Ryan & Futterman, 1997). There is also evidence of some LGB youth turning to work in the sex trade at least initially as a means of economic support and finding a place to belong (Banks, 2001; Tremble, 1993). Several studies have highlighted the incidence of substance abuse among LGB young people. LGB youth may turn to use and abuse drugs and alcohol for varied reasons, including managing stigma and

shame, denying same-sex feelings, or as a defense against ridicule and violence (Garofalo, Wolf, Kessel, Palfrey, & DuRant, 1998; Orenstein, 2001; Ryan & Futterman, 1997). A critical factor to consider in understanding the experiences of LGB youth is the relative lack of responsive and affirming services available. Because of the social alienation and stigmatization experienced, many do not feel safe in accessing health or social services and, as a result, do not seek support in dealing with the concerns discussed above (Babineau, 2001). Youth who do attempt to circumvent these barriers and access services are often met with additional homophobia and heterosexist assumptions on the part of the service provider. Not only can this combination of experiences prevent the youth from accessing safe and supportive services, it often contributes to overall feelings of hopelessness and alienation (Babineau, 2001). The above examples are included here not for the purposes of underscoring a message that being LGB is hazardous to physical, emotional, and psychological health, for this is not the case (Savin-Williams, 2001). Rather, their relevance is in highlighting that negative effects emanate from lack of support and resources, externalized homophobia, internalized homophobia, self-concealment of sexual orientation with the requisite alterations in behavior, and the stresses of coming out in an often hostile environment (Banks, 2003).

LOCAL STORIES OF LIVING WELL

The sociopolitical context of heterosexism and homophobia, the foundations on which they are built, and their manifestations, have been discussed above. Given this context and these consequences, we need to ask some questions: Is there such a thing as queer resilience? Are there resilient characteristics or experiences held or faced by LGB youth and unique negotiations between LGB youth and their environments that may encourage resilience? Are there programs and services or support that can nurture latent resilience in LGB youth? If there are such programs, what can be learned from them? To approach these questions, we sought the voices of LGB youth regarding their definitions and experiences of resilience. We used both interviews conducted as part of our clinical work with these youth and research specifically on the theme of resilience. All the youth were members of the Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Youth Project (the Youth Project) of Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. Their stories are included here. This method of data collection was chosen given the imperative to isolate the concept of queer resilience according to the language and lived realities of queer youth themselves. We begin, however, with an explanation of the scope of services provided by the Youth Project as a way of demonstrating the context that must necessarily be established if LGB youth are to be given the opportunities to advance socially, academically, and psychologically unhindered by the barriers imposed on them because of their sexual orientation.

THE YOUTH PROJECT: CREATING A CONTEXT FOR RESILIENCE

In spite of the specific and daunting impediments detailed above, the daily lives of LGB youth inform us consistently of perseverance, courage, and commitment to self-worth. Expressions of this resilience have been witnessed through the Youth Project, which was begun in November 1993 as a field placement for a bachelor of social work student at the Maritime School of Social Work, Dalhousie

University. The Youth Project was conceived and developed to meet needs of LGB youth that were then unmet by other youth-serving organizations. Initially, the Youth Project was composed solely of two support groups, both for individuals 25 years of age and underone for gay and bisexual men, the other for young lesbian and bisexual women. For several years, it was run fully by volunteers and supported in-kind by Planned Parenthood Nova Scotia. Incorporated as a nonprofit society in Nova Scotia in 2002, the Youth Project is an independent, charitable organization society governed by a board of directors and a youth board of directors, with a provincial mandate and staffed by two fulltime employees and numerous volunteers. The mission of the Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Youth Project is to make Nova Scotia a safer, healthier, and happier place for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered youth through support, education, resource expansion and community development (http:/ / www.youthproject.ns.ca). One of its key features is the involvement of youth at all levels of the organization, as reflected in the board governance structure. In addition to reserved seating on the board of directors, the youth board is composed of youth aged 25 years and younger who have accessed the programs and services of the Youth Project. Together, these boards are responsible for all aspects of the agency, including budget and policy development, service implementation, and personnel/volunteer issues. This coleadership ensures that the services being offered meet the needs identified by youth themselves, and as a result, services are continually evolving to meet the dynamic needs of the youth accessing the Youth Project. Over the past decade, the programs and services offered by the Youth Project have grown into three service areas: support services, education services, and social opportunities. Over the years, countless stories and experiences have been shared. Many are captured here in an effort to explore queer resilience in ways that may expand understanding of the broader resilience construct.

Support Services
Support Services offered at the Youth Project include confidential individual and family counseling, safe housing, HIV testing and pre-and post-HIV test counseling, the facilitation of a province-wide Ally identification program, and biweekly support groups. The counseling service is offered free of charge to young people and their families, with referrals primarily made by self, family members, and school personnel and contact occurring in the youth's home community, across the province. Although most youth access the support services for issues directly relating to sexual orientation, many access counseling for a variety of other issues. They speak of choosing the Youth Project because the mandate makes clear that barriers due to homophobia and heterosexism will not be encountered. Jade, age 17, says this of her experience visiting the Youth Project: After that first time coming down here, I left here thinking, Wow, a whole house, a whole place; they come in and do workshops and are like a guiding hand, so many resources. I had never seen people so out, and this whole house, you know, all the gay stuff, I hadn't seen that before it was something new and I liked it, so I just kept coming back, like all the time, and I would read about it, and ask around.

A component of the Youth Project, the Safe Home Program, addresses the reality that young LGB people experience homelessness as a result of feeling unsafe, at risk, or not supported in their home living environments, a situation generally precipitated by the severe isolation and, often, by violence provoked by the prevalence and expressions of homophobia. Homeless by this forced choice or by the actions of family members, LGB youth find that the Safe Home Program provides supportive living environments through which to complete educational goals, develop a positive sense of self, and gain skills necessary to make a healthy transition to adulthood. Robert's story is typical of many youth who participate in the Youth Project out of the necessity to deal with threats to their well-being: Robert was 16 when he first contacted the Youth Project, referred by a psychologist he was seeing to help cope with the homophobia experienced in his rural community. Robert was being taunted by his classmates and threatened on a daily basis after he was outed to his school by his best friend. One day Robert was chased home from school by five classmates. When they caught him, they shot him numerous times with a pellet gun. Robert no longer felt safe in his community and moved into the Safe Home Program. He stayed in the program for 9 months during which time he completed high school and became employed. The literature is replete with accounts from LGB youth who say that fear of homophobia prevents them from trying to access support from teachers, guidance counselors, physicians, and other adults in their lives. The Ally Card program was developed by the Youth Project to identify affirming and inclusive individuals whom young people can approach for support. An ally is someone who accepts, appreciates, and celebrates LGB youthsomeone of any sexual orientation who commits to work alongside the Youth Project to eradicate the discrimination and fear that LGB youth experience. Following a screening process, the Youth Project provides a card for display, thus helping to identify safe spaces for LGB youth. In return, the ally is called on to be active within a network of supports and resources throughout the province. In addition to the above efforts, one of the bedrocks of the Youth Project is the provision of biweekly support group meetings for LGB and transgendered youth. Groups are held in Halifax, a community of 300,000, and in rural communities throughout the province. These groups provide opportunities for youth to come together for education and peer support as directed by the expressed needs of the youth who attend them. Facilitation is provided through trained adult volunteers. Tamryn started coming to the support meetings when she was 15 years old. At first she didn't speak much, but slowly she began to form connections with other group members. After coming to the meetings for about a year, she brought her mother into the Youth Project to meet the staff and volunteers. Her mother thanked the staff and volunteers, saying that Tamryn had changed dramatically since coming to the meetings. Her grades had returned to the A level they had been prior to her coming out, and she was no longer depressed. Both Tamryn and her mother attributed these positive changes to connections she had made with peers at the support meetings.

Education Services

The Youth Project provides several services to young LGB and transgendered people to facilitate reaching educational goals. These services include advocacy within the education system, free tutoring, support, and information in decision making with regard to postsecondary education, job search skill development, and an on-site school program. As discussed above, LGB youth have reported feeling unsafe and not validated within their community school environments. As a result, many choose to drop out of school, despite identifying school as an important aspect of their lives (Peters, 2003). The Safe Classroom program began in 2002 as an alternative school environment for LGB and transgendered youth. This structured day program facilitates the completion of high school credits in a classroom setting with the support necessary to return to a mainstream school environment or graduate from high school through an off-site collaboration between the Youth Project and a local school board. The Youth Project also provides an annual bursary to a LGB or transgendered youth pursuing postsecondary education. Chris had transferred to three different schools in one academic year because of the homophobia he faced from his classmates. He heard about the Youth Project Safe Classroom program from friends and applied. In his meeting with the Youth Project Education Coordinator, it was realized that he only had four courses to complete in order to graduate. He enrolled in the classroom program and completed his courses and obtained his high school diploma. He is now taking a year off and working before deciding what postsecondary institution he will attend. Education services also include community education workshops on homophobia and heterosexism and their effects on LGB youth. Interactive workshops and professional development training are conducted in a range of environments, including junior and senior high schools, youth-serving organizations, and university classes. Topics range from creating safer school environments to meeting the counseling needs of LGB youth. There are also educational opportunities, either group or individual, to gain information on a variety of topics, including safer sex practices, spirituality, healthy relationships, coming-out issues, and any other topic identified by the youth. As one youth commented after a school presentation, Thanks so much; that was the first time I've heard anyone say that what I experience every day [the homophobia] is wrong.

Social Opportunities
Queer youth often face extreme isolation. Given the prevalence of homophobia and heterosexism, many do not have the opportunity to socialize with other youth, and when they do, these experiences may bring with them yet more fear of violence and intimidation. The Youth Project recognizes that isolation is one of the key factors contributing to the risk-taking behaviors of LGB youth, behaviors that may expose the youth to great danger and exploitation. Thus, the project facilitates drug- and alcohol-free safe social opportunities as a central aspect of its programming. Examples of activities include biweekly drop-in nights; movie nights; barbecues; Pride Week activities; dances, including an annual Queer Prom; and annual summer and winter retreats. Retreats range in duration from 3 to 6 days and are held in areas across the province and in other provinces as well. The duration and nature of the retreats allows youth from rural areas to attend and creates a powerful opportunity for socializing in an environment that is affirming and validating.

During a retreat that was held in Montreal during Pride Week, Bobby, who was about 23 years old, was found sitting on a curb. One of the facilitators sat down and asked him what was wrong. He looked up and with tears streaming down his face said, This is the first time I ever felt I truly belonged anywhere . The first time.

UNDERSTANDING QUEER RESILIENCE

The lives of queer youth present rich examples of resilience when their well-being is seen as the result of ongoing negotiations between themselves and their environments. Despite a societal context laden with structural and ideological challenges and family environments often precarious with regard to acceptance and validation, queer youth regularly locate the personal and community resources to maximize their life opportunities. How does this happen? Peirson, Laurendeau, and Chamberland (2001) assert, Protective mechanisms (conditions, circumstances, characteristics of person or environment) serve to enhance the potential for resilience (p. 58). These features can be found at the levels of the individual, family, and gay and ally community. This section explores our emerging thoughts on a pattern of queer youth resilience that reflects both the constraints and opportunities to be found in the current societal context, the literature, and the stories of youth as heard through the Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Youth Project. We identify key components that contribute to experiences of living well. Invoking the language of protective factors requires a few provisos. First, we note that our intention is not to suggest these are binary characteristics, representing either good or bad traits. Furthermore, we accept that there can be no distinction that a young person either has or does not have these characteristics; they exist along a continuum and within each person to a greater or lesser degree. In addition, we are not suggesting that these features are not available also for straight youth; they are not gay characteristics. At the same time, these features do seem to combine in unique ways in the lives of LGB youth to produce experiences of queer resilience.

Truth in Being
To begin, there is in the literature documented evidence of a sense of entitlement that queer youth carry that contributes to their belief that they deserve to express truth in their being. There is a prerogative, or a right, to feel fulfilled in life and a corresponding choice to manage appropriately what Lance, a 16-year-old project participant calls the sexual orientation stuff. Associated with this entitlement is a sense of personal agency covertly evidenced through the stories youth tell about themselves. These stories are full of accounts of forward momentum and an action orientation toward self-acceptance and making the choices required to be out as LGB. Rob, age 17, asserts, Coming out, to me, was a lot more than just affirming my own sexuality. It was saying, This is who I am and I don't care about what others think. I know that is about my sexuality, but it changed every dynamic of my lifeevery dynamic. One morning it just clicked and it was like, You don't deserve this at all these people don't know you. Not even my parents, they don't know me; very few people know me. If I don't get respect and validity, I don't deal with that person. It's like, Hello, I know what I'm talking about. I know who I am.

When I came out, that's when I started to give myself some respect and validity and when I came out, that's when I started to look at everyone else and said, Well if I can give it to myself, then they can too. When I came out I started to give myself respect, and the more respect I gave myself, the more I got not letting people walk all over me, standing up for myself, stuff like that. There is evidence that youth who have familiarity or experiences with autonomy and self-reliance may be prepared to work with the isolation or covering up that is required of many youth who have not yet come out. Although they may not enjoy the self-reliance or might not have sought it out otherwise, familiarity with being on one's own in some area of one's life is reported as one of the experiences of queer youth that may be linked with resilience features on the individual level. Jade shares her thoughts: I think if you can overcome the adversity of, you know, being a target, when you are gay or lesbian or bisexual growing up, it lends itself to resilience. You know, if you can overcome that, then you can overcome a lot of other things because you have been through that adversity already and you have tackled, you know, isolation and unacceptance and being alone. If you have to go through all of that conflict, then that would build you. And people grow up being targeted even if no one knowsyou are still affected by all those messages. I guess my resiliency comes with just constantly separating what I do and where I work and who I am from my family and my relatives. I guess they're proud of me, and I have this fear that that would go away that's going to all stop if they find out, so I keep it away. Experiences of youth who are participants in the Youth Project also suggest there is a personal orientation toward rejecting the negativity and myths promoted by heterosexism and homophobia. This rejection seems to parallel a theme, heard throughout the Youth Project stories, of being true to oneself and seeking to be true in relationships with others. Carmella notes, The word normal is bullshit anyhow it's a place in Idaho. There are 14,000 normal people, that's all. Miguel, age 29, captures the quest for living true to oneself when he says, Coming out was the most difficult, the most painful time of my life but also the most liberating, crazy time but the alternative [to not coming out] was worse. I couldn't achieve or live my life in the closet. I was doing up my resume and listing all this great stuff, and I looked at it and went, None of this is mine this is all what other people want me to be. I needed to be true to myself but also true to my relationships. I was so afraid I would lose my family, but more important there was no bright future. Coming out looked more real. I could start negotiating stuff. And I remember the good stuff about coming out. All of a sudden I was so light.

Family Characteristics
In theorizing family characteristics that contribute toward resilience, we note that there are overlaps between community and family. In addition, although most often, family stories refer to the youth's family of origin, we recognize that not infrequently a young person's family of choice is the family they refer to when they speak of their experiences with their families. Families that respond in a welcoming and affirming manner to the coming out of their children necessarily contribute to family-related

resilience among LGB youth (Savin-Williams & Dube, 1998). This experience has not been well documented in the literature, nor was it present in the stories heard through the Youth Project, which may be indicative of its relative lack of frequency. More often, one or two family members may be aware and may be conditionally supportive, as opposed to there being full-family acceptance and celebration of the youth's sexual orientation (Mallon, 1999). Organizations such as Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (P-FLAG) may be more accessible to youth than their own families. Jade, age 17, recalls, When I was younger I wanted to join P-FLAG, like before I came out to myself. I just wanted to be involved and be around families that were okay with it all. I don't really know why. Some youth suggest that when issues around same-sex relationships and intimacy remain invisible, the youth experience marginal freedom from myths and stereotypes they may otherwise be subjected to in family contexts. This is, however, a precarious situation. Invisibility can be a mask for intolerance. As one participant noted, an absence of discussion about sexual orientation issues can potentially limit misinformation and hostility, which may in turn limit internalized homophobia among an LGB youth. Jessica notes, My family never said anything homophobic; they didn't say anything at all. So although I didn't receive any accurate information about being lesbian, I also didn't have to navigate a load of antilesbian stereotypes and myths.

Gay and Ally Community Characteristics

The wider community can play a role in either hindering or supporting the positive identity formation of queer youth. Communities hold the promises of exclusion and violence as well as promises for inclusion and acceptance. As Bernice, a transsexual character in the film Priscilla, Queen of the Desert says, I don't know if the ugly walls of suburbia are put up to keep them out or to keep us in. The vitality of the Youth Project, expressed by its members, rests firmly on the platform of its community features and its role in breaking the isolation, loneliness, and fear experienced by many queer youth. Locating and securing the means to break social isolation, accessing the gay and ally community, and sharing identity are cornerstones in naming protective features that contribute to resilience. Twenty-three year old Carmella shares that once you're in the gay community, it's like family. It helped me form relationships, kept me from being lonely and afraid. it connected me to other people. If I hadn't identified with the people I identified with, I don't know what would've happened. Having a peer group with whom one feels accepted for one's core identity is an empowering experience, one that offers validation and a safe space to be one's self. When one lives outside the boundaries of what is socially accepted, youth tell us that there is more room for self-expression. When one finds in that same space beyond conventionality like-minded people, then the LGB youth may be more likely to encounter encouragement and positive feedback for however she or he wants to

be identified. Locating and securing safe places to explore one's identity and its meanings is critical to fanning the embers of resilience. Matthew was 17 when he attended his first Youth Project retreat, held in Montreal during Pride Week. At the beginning of the retreat, Matthew said he didn't feel comfortable participating in the parade that would happen at the end of the week because he didn't want anyone to know he was gay. Five days later, as the group prepared to leave for the parade, Matthew came dancing out of the cabin where the youth were staying dressed in full drag and yelling that he was ready for the parade! As such stories demonstrate, finding a gay or ally community often brings access to information that can counteract the messages of heterosexism and homophobia found in the larger community. Role models play an important part in gaining this access. Jade explained, in regard to her own experience, Some people come here [the Youth Project] and have no friends whatsoever because they are gay or not accepted, and they find, like, good role models here. Some of the older staff are gay people who are successful, and they are helping kids who are insecure in who they are, and young gay kids can see these people who are successful in their relationships and they see it is not impossible. I can have that, I can have a good relationship. I can get married if I want to. They provide that here. At school they may be called a freak or a fag, and here they are accepted and people like you for who you are, and people can sympathize with what you've gone through because people have gone through it themselves.

MORE STORIES ARE STILL TO BE TOLD

The iterative and interactive relationships between self, family, and the gay and ally community suggested here make up an initial step in theorizing queer resilience. There are yet more layers to be revealed through yet more stories and experience. To reach a conclusive statement in this discussion seems not only unlikely but also inappropriate. Sexual orientation and expression are fluid social categories, concepts continuously negotiated and renegotiated in multiple contexts. As evidenced throughout this chapter, queer youth resilience is realized within a society predicated on homophobia and heterosexism. Professionals working in this field can become allies with LGB youth in this work in ways that encourage and nurture this resilience. We suggest a few guiding principles for this work based on the narratives of those youth with whom we have spoken: 1. Do your own work first. Commitment to the social justice agenda of being an ally in this work comes more easily after we have sorted through our own assumptions, biases, experiences, concerns, and hopes. Queer youth cannot be expected to burden themselves with helping us to work through our issues. 2. Read about heterosexual privilege and consider its effects in your life. Read first voice material from LGB people about their experiences of heterosexism and homophobia. Let feelings of discomfort be part of the journey. 3. Continue to expand the space for queer youth to explore their sexual orientation in affirming and validating environments. Get involved in your local community by joining programs such

as the Youth Project, which exist around the world, or by starting new ones. Safe spaces can blossom in just about any community. 4. Heed the call to confront and challenge the homophobia and heterosexism that exist in our society, in private and public. Protest can happen in many forms, from marching in pride parades to articulating our refusal to join in ridicule of LGB people when it happens in social circles. Read stories to the children you know that have same-sex character pairings, or at the least, question openly the predominance of the Cinderella story and its derivatives. Find your voice somewhere on the continuum and practice its expression. Efforts such as these can help create a healing context for young people who must navigate the conditions of heterosexism and homophobia and the resulting oppressions. All the ingredients required for resilience are available within LGB youth and our communities. Making choices to intentionally season and simmer those ingredients can yield a rich broth of health and happiness for everyone committed to a more just and caring world.

NOTES
1. The politics of language deserve mention in our choices of words throughout this chapter. Although it is not our intention to blur the distinctions of lesbian, gay, and bisexual identity or to depersonalize identity, we have chosen for simplicity of reading to abbreviate our language to LGB. Alternately, we use the term queer for the same population. 2. A note on the parameters of this chapter: Transgendered youth are not included in this chapter given the distinction adopted that transgender relates to gender orientation and not sexual orientation. Beyond this, there are additional layers to societal context, including intolerance when there is discrepancy between biological sex and gender expression. These different expressions of intolerance require closer examination that is beyond the scope of this chapter. 3. Retrieved from http:/ / www.egale.ca, June 28, 2004. 4. This debate is simplified here; however, the interested reader is directed to Herek (2000) for discussion and inclusion of other terms (e.g., homo-negativity, homohatred, and sexual prejudice) as alternatives. 5. The term compulsory heterosexuality was first articulated by Rich (1981), capturing the analysis that heterosexual activity is more than a pervasive and persistent scripted behavior; it is a political (rather than natural) social institution and tool required by patriarchy to maintain itself. 6. Given the parameters of this chapter, intersections among race and class relative to those noted are not explored here. The reader is directed to the resources of hooks (1984) and Collins (1990) for this exploration. Marion Brown Marc Colbourne

10.4135/978-1-41297-631-2.n16

REFERENCES
Appleby, G. A. , 8 Anastas, J. W. (1998). Not just a passing phase: Social work with gay, lesbian and bisexual people . New York: Columbia University Press. Babineau, N. (2001). Access denied: Lesbian, gay and bisexual youth and the health care system: A resource for service providers . Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada: Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Youth Project. Bagley C and D'Augelli A. R. Suicidal behavior in gay, lesbian and bisexual youth British Medical Journal vol. 320 (2000) p. 16171618 Bagley, C , 8 Tremblay, P. (1997). Suicidal behaviors in homosexual and bisexual males: Evidence from a random community study of 750 men aged 18 to 27 . In C. Bagley , ed. 8 R. Ramsay (Eds.), Suicidal behaviour in adolescents and adults: Research, taxonomy, and prevention (pp. p. 177195) Brookfield, VT: Avebury. Banks, C. (2001). The cost of homophobia: Literature review of the economic impact of homophobia in Canada . Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada: Rochon Associated. Banks, C. (2003). The cost of homophobia: Literature review on the human impact of homophobia in Canada . Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada: Rochon Associated. Blumenfeld, W. J. (1992). Children, families and homophobia . Boston: Beacon Press. Cass V. C. Homosexual identity formation: A theoretical model Journal of Homosexuality vol. 4 (1979) p. 219235 Collins, P. H. (1990). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment . Boston: Unwin Hyman. D'Augelli A. , Hershberger S. , and Pilkington N. Lesbian, gay and bisexual youth and their families: Disclosure of sexual orientation and its consequences America Journal of Orthopsychiatry vol. 68 (1998) p. 361372 D'Augelli, A. , Pilkington, N. , 8 Hershberger, S. (2000). The mental health impact of sexual orientation victimization of lesbian, gay and bisexual youth in high school . Unpublished manuscript. Dalrymple, J. , 8 Burke, B. (1995). Some essential elements of anti-oppressive theory . In J. Dalrymple , ed. 8 B. Burke (Eds.), Anti-oppressive practice: Social care and the law (pp. p. 721). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Eccles T. A. , Sayegh M. A. , Fortenberry J. D. , and Zimet G. D. More normal than not: A qualitative assessment of the developmental experiences of gay youth Journal of Adolescent Health vol. 32 (2003) p. 137139 Egale Calls on Alliance Party to Permanently Expel MP Larry Spencer from Caucus [Press release] , (2003, November 27). Retrieved July 14, 2004, from www.egale.ca/ index.asp? lang=E8menu=20038item=776 Eliason M. Attitudes about lesbians and gay men: A review and implications for social service training Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services vol. 2 no. (2) (1995) p. 7390 Erikson, E. (1963). Childhood and society . New York: Norton. Erikson, E. (1968). Identity, youth and crisis . New York: Norton. Flowers P. and Buston K. I was terrified of being different: Exploring gay men's accounts of growing up in a heterosexist society Journal of Adolescence vol. 24 no. (1) (2001) p. 5165 Frye, M. (1983). The politics of reality: Essays in feminist theory . New York: Crossing Press. Garofalo R. , Wolf R. C , Kessel S. , Palfrey J. , and DuRant R. H. The association between health risk behaviors and sexual orientation among a school-based sample of adolescents Pediatrics vol. 101 (1998) p. 895902 Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network . (2001). The 2001 national school climate survey: Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered students and their experiences in schools . New York: Author. Gibson, P. (1989). Secretary's task force on youth suicide report . Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Grossman A. Growing up with a spoiled identity : Lesbian, gay and bisexual youth at risk Journal of Gay 8 Lesbian Social Services vol. 5 no. (3) (1997) p. 4556 Herek G. Beyond homophobia : A social psychological perspective on attitudes toward lesbians and gay men Journal of Homosexuality vol. 10 no. (1/2) (1984) p. 121 Herek G. M. The psychology of sexual prejudice Current Directions in Psychological Science vol. 9 no. (1) (2000) p. 1922 Hooks, B. (1984). Feminist theory: From the margin to the center . Boston: South End Press. Human Rights Watch . (2001). Hatred in the hallways: Violence and discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students in U.S. schools . New York: Human Rights Watch.

MacQueen, K. (2004, March 29). Mrs. and Mrs. in a gay mecca . Macleans Magazine p. p. 30. Mallon G. P. Gay and lesbian adolescents and their families Journal of Gay and Lesbian Services vol. 10 no. (2) (1999) p. 6988 Mihalik G. J. Homosexuality, stigma, and biocultural evolution Journal of Gay and Lesbian Psychotherapy vol. 1 no. (4) (1991) p. 1529 Nuggets: News, notes and findings from the ADAP Program Compliance 8 Analysis Unit . (1998). [Survey]. Burlington, VT: Vermont Department of Health, Office of Alcohol and Drug Free Programs. Orenstein A. Substance use among gay and lesbian adolescents Journal of Homosexuality vol. 41 no. (2) (2001) p. 115 Peirson, L. , Laurendeau, M. , 8 Chamberland, C. (2001). Context, contributing factors, and consequences . In I. Prilleltensky , ed. , G. Nelson , ed. , Nelson L. , ed. , 8 L. Peirson (Eds.), Promoting family wellness and preventing child maltreatment (pp. p. 41123). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto Press. Peters A. Isolation or inclusion: Creating safe spaces for lesbian and gay youth Families in Society vol. 84 no. (3) (2003) p. 331337 Pharr, S. (1988). Homophobia: A weapon of sexism . Inverness, CA: Chardon Press. Plummer D. The quest for modern manhood: Masculine stereotypes, peer culture and the social significance of homophobia Journal of Adolescence vol. 24 no. (1) (2001) p. 1523 Remafedi G , Farrow J. A. , and Deisher R. W. Risk factors for attempted suicide in gay and bisexual youth Pediatrics vol. 87 (1991) p. 869875 Remafedi G , French S. , Story M. , Resnick M. , and Blum R. The relationship between suicide risk and sexual orientation: Results of a population based study American Journal of Public Health vol. 88 (1998, January) p. 5760 Rich, A. (1981). Compulsory heterosexuality and lesbian existence . London: Onlywomen Press. Ryan, C , 8 Futterman, D. (1997). Lesbian and gay youth: Care and counselling . Philadelphia: Hanley 8 Belfus. Sanders G. L. and Kroll I. T. Generating stories of resilience: Helping gay and lesbian youth and their families Journal of Marital and Family Therapy vol. 26 no. (4) (2000) p. 433143 Savin-Williams R. C. Verbal and physical abuse as stressors in the lives of lesbian, gay male and bisexual youths: Associations with school problems, running away, substance abuse, prostitution, and suicide Journal of Consulting Clinical Psychology vol. 62 (1994) p. 261269

Savin-Williams R. C. A critique of research on sexual minority youths Journal of Adolescence vol. 24 no. (1) (2001) p. 513 Savin-Williams R. C and Dube E. M. Parental reactions to their child's disclosure of a gay/lesbian identity Family Relations vol. 47 no. (1) (1998) p. 713 Tolman D. L. , Spencer R. , Rosen-Reynoso M. , and Porche M. V. Sowing the seeds of violence in heterosexual relationships: Early adolescents narrate compulsory heterosexuality Journal of Social Issues vol. 59 no. (1) (2003) p. 159178 Tremble B. Prostitution and survival; Interviews with gay street youth Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality vol. 2 no. (1) (1993) p. 395 Troiden R. R. The formation of homosexual identities Journal of Homosexuality vol. 17 no. (12) (1989) p. 4373 Ungar, M. (2004). Nurturing hidden resilience in troubled youth . Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto Press. Uribe, V , 8 Harbeck, K. (1992). Addressing the needs of lesbian, gay and bisexual youth: The origins of Project 100 and school-based intervention . In K. Harbeck (Ed.), Coming out of the classroom closet: Gay and lesbian teachers and curricula . Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press. Weinberg, F. (1972). Society and the healthy homosexual . New York: St. Martins Press.

Entry Citation:
"Bent But Not Broken: Exploring Queer Youth Resilience ." Handbook for Working With Children and Youth. 2005. SAGE Publications. 8 Sep. 2009. <http://www.sageereference.com/hdbk_youth/Article_n16.html>.

SAGE Publications, Inc.