S.I.

D: 17876490
ASSESSMENT 2

Symons, C., O’Sullivan, G., Borkoles, E., Andersen, M., Polman, R.C.J. (2014). The

impact of homophobic bullying during Sport and Physical Education participation on

Same-Sex-Attracted and Gender-Diverse young Australians’ depression and anxiety

levels: “The Equal Play Study”.

There is a claim that homophobic attitudes towards Same-Sex-Attracted and Gender Diverse

(SSAGD) students in Physical Education (PE) and Sports environment have affected their

mental health, overall wellbeing, academic, sporting as well as their social abilities. Thus, this

has become an alarming academic and social concern that requires continuous vigilant

professional monitoring especially in the school environment. Differentiated and

discriminated against due to their sexual orientation, these students are unfairly and poorly

treated because they are either a lesbian, a homosexual, a transgender, a bisexual or a gay

individual. The systemic heteronormative and gender binary discourse that highlights the

boy-and/versus-girl differences largely constitutes to ongoing homophobic language to

demean and de-value SSAGD students who do not fit the gender-sex, heterosexual

conventions. So much so, that Symons, O’Sullivan, Borkoles, Andersen and Polman’s (2014)

“The Equal Play Study” has identified homophobic language as the salient tool used to

demean SSAGD students during PE and School as well as Club sports. Central to this

research is the claim that homophobic bullying - in the form of homophobic language -

during PE and Sports participation is attributable to SSAGD students’ negative mental state

and deteriorating wellbeing. In contrast, “Homophobic name-calling among Secondary

school students and its implications for mental health” conducted by Collier, Bos and

Sandfort (2013) argues that despite the association of homophobic verbal abuse with negative

Page 1 of 8
 S.I.D: 17876490
ASSESSMENT 2

mental outcomes for young SSAGD students, this claim was unsubstantiated. Reason being,

was that there was not enough evidence to prove and support claims that homophobic verbal

victimisation was directly and solely responsible for SSAGD students’ psychological

miseries. Nevertheless, both researches acknowledge the existence of homophobic bullying

through the use of demeaning language, whether it be intentional or casual homophobic

language. In the implementation of quantitative and qualitative research methods, both

researches agree that appropriate strategies need to be in place to educate both SSAGD

students as well as their heterosexual peers on issues around homophobic bullying.

The main purpose of Symons et al.’s (2014) “The Equal Play Study” was to examine if

homophobic attitudes occurring in Australian schools’ PE and sport settings were the cause

of, and/or correlated to adolescent SSAGD Australians’ mental health and wellbeing (p. 3). In

addition, Symons et al.’s (2014) endeavours aimed at investigating any evidence of

obstructions for SSAGD students participating in PE and sport (p. 3). The research was

initiated as a result of past researches that suggested the challenging and unsafe nature of

sporting environments for SSAGD students by ways of homophobic language – casual

homophobic language included. While Collier, Bos and Sandfort (2013), mirrors the

hypothetical aspects of homophobic bullying that were prevalent amongst adolescent students

in “The Equal Play Study”, the main focus of this research was “how” (p. 367) incidences of

being the targets of “homophobic name-calling” (p. 367) had any bearing on SSAGD

students’ psychological distress. An interesting aspect in Collier et al.’s (2013) study was that

instead of a reductive focus on the claim that homophobic language was the root cause of

SSAGD students’, the research expanded to “other (prevailing) forms of peer victimisation”

(p. 363). Hence, the claim that SSAGD students’ depression and anxiety levels were not

Page 2 of 8
 S.I.D: 17876490
ASSESSMENT 2

closely linked to homophobic name calling: words such as “faggot, gay (and/or) dyke”

(Collier et al., 2013, p. 364; Symons et al., 2014, p. 3).

Subtle differences exist between Symons et al.’s (2014) “The Equal Play Study” and Collier

et al.’s (2013) research which are important to consider. First; the former was undertaken in

Australia while the latter in the Netherlands. It is important to consider the political, social

and ethnographic environment in which each research was conducted, because they underpin

the context of the respective studies. In this instance, one would expect that Australia’s

dogmatic multicultural society would be an ideal environment that accepts and passionately

promotes diversity in race, culture and indeed, gender diversity. While such is the case in

some avenues, it is problematic in most cases especially when religious values play a huge

role against gender diversity. For example, the dominant discourse associated with

homosexuality in the Muslim belief is, that it is a “western disease”, therefore not welcome

and unacceptable (Sanjakdar, 2011, p. 16). Such beliefs are vital to understanding the context

of homophobic attitudes in the two studies discussed in the essay.

What is significant about Collier et al.’s (2013) study is the articulation of the Netherland’s

“social climate” which was tributed for the relative “acceptance of sexual and gender

minorities by international standards” (Collier, et al., 2013, p. 372). Homophobic language in

this sense was not accepted in “some” (p. 372) way, meaning that for the vast majority of

young people and the Netherlands population, “homophobic epithets in differing ways” (p.

372) did not necessarily connote sexual prejudice or even any aspiration to do real harm

(Collier, et al., 2013, p. 365). In fact, the words “faggot and queer” were used

interchangeably amongst heterosexual adolescents as “joking insults”, yet did not “consider

Page 3 of 8
 S.I.D: 17876490
ASSESSMENT 2

this a form of gay-bashing or related…to sexual orientation of the person targeted” (Burn &

Pascoe, as cited in Collier, et al., 2013). This notion however, was problematic because

homophobic language, whatever it was, had the desire to “subordinate another person”,

therefore unacceptable (McCormack & Andersen, as cited in Collier, et al., 2013). Despite

acknowledging the vulnerability of SSAGD students with regards to homophobic language,

Collier et al. (2013) still contended to the idea that homophobic name-calling had any

profound effect on all “same-sex attracted and gender non-conforming youth” mental health

and wellbeing (p. 363).

The second subtle difference between the “The Equal Play Study” and Collier et al.’s

researches is that the former was based on, and done within the PE and Sporting setting.

According to the “Equal Play Study”, previous researches reported that SSAGD students

indicated that they were not feeling safe in PE and sporting environment (Symons et al. 2013,

p. 7). Such concerning indications prompted this research with support, guidance and

feedback from representatives of a “reference group” (Symons et al., 2013, p. 7). This group

included the Vic Health; Victorian Equal Opportunity and Equal Rights Commission – a

government entrusted, but “an independent statutory body with responsibilities under three

Victorian laws which included the Equal Opportunity Act 2010, and the Charter for Human

Rights Act 2006”; the Australian Council for Health, Physical Education and Recreation

(ACHPER) – the leading professional representation for teachers and other professionals

working in the fields of health, PE, recreation and sport; Minus 18 – Australia’s largest

youth-led organisation for same-sex-attracted and gender diverse who promote social

inclusion and empowerment of SSAGD young people; and the Rainbow Network - for

specialist workers and/or anyone working in (a) group/s or (a) project/s aimed at addressing

the needs of same sex attracted, intersex, trans and gender diverse “Victorians”.

Page 4 of 8
 S.I.D: 17876490
ASSESSMENT 2

It can be said that a limitation for this research was that it was done solely in the Victorian

state. While it may have represented the issue faced by SSAGD students, this may not

necessarily represent all other states in Australia such as New South Wales and Queensland,

just to name a few. Apart from the Vic Health department, the rest of the piloting

organisations for “The Equal Study” were/are enterprises who depend/ed on funding from

government, and/or institutions such as the College of Sport and Exercise Science, Victoria,

and the Institute for Sport, Exercise and Active Living, and/or the Beyondblue organisation.

There is a possibility that the research was biased, politically, funding, career and/or

marketing motivated. Nevertheless, Symons et al.’s (2014) research was an endeavour to

emphasise the much needed attention required for SSAGD students because of the profound

impact homophobic and transphobic language had on them in PE and sport environment.

The strength of “The Equal Play Study” however, is that it covers a specific area (sport)

which Washington and Karen (2001) identified as a “relatively neglected and undertheorized

area of sociological research” (p. 187). Washington & Karen (2001) drew mainly upon the

“contested ideological terrain” (p. 198) of gender construction to examine hegemonic

elements of homophobic and transphobic attitudes. This meant that masculine and feminine

identities conformed to social expectations in which physical aggression and toughness were

directly associated with the former, while the latter was a close concomitant to weakness. In

this context, it was suggested that all boys played or ought to play aggressive games such as

rugby. As a result, the dominant hegemonic masculinity discourse justified homophobic

name-calling for gay and homosexual boys, more so than girls, particularly in the sporting

arena (Washington & Karen, 2001, p. 199). This notion supports Collier et al.’s (2013)

hypothesis that homophobic name-calling affected boys psychologically, more so than it did

girls.

Page 5 of 8
 S.I.D: 17876490
ASSESSMENT 2

What is interesting about the “Sport and Society” study is the claim that gender hierarchies

was reinforced through “televised sports commentary” (Messner and associates as cited in

Washington & Karen, 2001). This claim was referring to the language used in commentaries

which infantilised the feminine physique and undermined female contributions into sports.

This is a significant review because it highlights gender and sexual conventions which are

problematic today – particularly in PE and sport environments. Gender and sexual

conventions enabled homophobic name-calling discussed in both articles. At the same token,

the emphasis on media language equated to negative images of gender, sexuality, body and

identity which were found to be the regulator of homophobic language amongst SSAGD

students and their heterosexual peers. In effect, it was the basis of harassment and verbal

bullying.

In contrast to “The Equal Play Study”, while Collier et al.’s (2013) was specifically on

Secondary school students, it was not particular to PE and sports. Rather, the study evaluated

the general “peer victimisation” (p. 365) that contributed to psychological distress of SSAGD

students. Peer victimisation, according to Poteat and Espelage (as cited in Collier et al., 2013)

was associated with “depression and anxiety, personal distress, sense of school belonging and

withdrawal” (p. 365). In this sense, it can be said that there are factors other than homophobic

victimisation that contribute to SSAGD students’ depressed mental state such as fear of

coming out, fear of rejection, family and religious issues, issues with identity and so forth.

Participants for/in both studies differ tremendously. “The Equal Play Study” recruited its 563

participants via Facebook and through “SSAGD youth networks that included The Rainbow

Network, the Safe Schools Coalition, Family Planning Victoria, Minus 18 and Victorian

Page 6 of 8
 S.I.D: 17876490
ASSESSMENT 2

University Queer groups/officers” (Symons et al., 2014, p. 8). The method of survey however

was done online and extended throughout Australia. While this was a convenient and an

efficient method of carrying out the survey, it can be said that it was a problematic method

nonetheless because online information can be unreliable and participants’ integrity

questionable.

On the other hand, participants in Collier et al.’s research were from “eight (public and

urban-based) schools who agreed to participate” (p. 367) with class sizes that varied from 250

to 1,500 students. Participation was voluntary and the survey was completed during regular

class times and done either on paper or a computer in the presence of their instructor. One

problem with this method, is that it could have been intimidating for some students, therefore,

some may not feel comfortable enough to complete the questionnaire honestly especially with

questions involving gender specifics, sexuality and psychological state.

Despite the various differences aforementioned in the essay, both researches agree that the

existence of homophobic bullying through the use of demeaning language, and peer

victimisation affect SSAGD students’ mental state and overall wellbeing. Further studies

however, will likely to be conducted in order to keep the teaching profession up-to-date and

well-informed with strategies to assist SSAGD students as well as their heterosexual peers.

Page 7 of 8
 S.I.D: 17876490
ASSESSMENT 2

References

ACHPER: The Australian Council for Health, Physical Education and Recreation. Retrieved

from http://www.achper.org.au/aboutus/about-us

Collier, K. L., Bos, H. M., W., Sandfort, T. G., & M. (2013). Homophobic name-calling

among secondary school students and its implications for mental health.Journal of

Youth and Adolescence, 42(3), 363-75.

doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/10.1007/s10964-012-9823-2

Minus 18. Retrieved from https://minus18.org.au/index.php/about-us/parents-workers-2

Rainbow Network. Retrieved from http://www.rainbownetwork.com.au/

Sanjakdar, F. (2013). Educating for sexual difference? Muslim teachers' conversations about

homosexuality. Sex Education, 13(1), 16-29.

Victorian Equal Opportunity and Equal Rights Commission: Retrieved from

http://www.achper.org.au/aboutus/about-us

Washington, R. E., & David, K. (2001). Sport and society. Annual Review of Sociology, 27,

187-212. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/docview/199612230?accountid=3615

Page 8 of 8