The first book derives from one of four ESRC-funded seminars that took place in Scotland. The seminars represented a synergy of social science, law, media and cultural studies research that aimed to better understand the life-courses of people who have lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) identities or experiences. It is entitled “Out of The Ordinary: Representations of LGBT Lives”and consists of nine chapters (listed below). It reflects a key theme within the seminar series; it brings together the lived experiences of LGBT people and methods of representing those experiences. Drawn from applied social science research, performance narratives, creative writings and art work, the proposed manuscript offers insights into the ways in which LGBT people present themselves and are, in turn, represented not only by LGBT scholars and authors, but also by the communities and cultures within which they live.

Chapters

Chapter 1: Introduction: Out of the Ordinary (pp.1-11) written by Ian Rivers (Brunel University London) and Richard Ward (University of Manchester).

Chapter 2: The Gospel According to Jesus Queen of Heaven: A Personal History of a Controversial Play (pp. 12-32) written by Jo Clifford (Playwright).

Chapter 3: Where’s Our Public Library Service? LGBT Fact of Fiction? (pp. 33-49) written by Jacq Goldthorp (Moray Community Health and Social Care Partnership).

Chapter 4: “In This Our Lives”: Invisibility and Black British Gay Identity (pp. 50-68) written by Antoine Rogers (London South Bank University).

Chapter 5: To be Judged “Gay” (pp. 69-84). written by Leslie J. Moran (Birkbeck, University of London).

Chapter 6: Dogging Diaries and Cameras in the Cruising Ground (pp. 85-101) written by Chris Ashford (University of Sunderland).

Chapter 7: Cisgenderism in Medical Settings: Challenging Structural Violence through Collaborative Partnerships (pp. 102-122) written by Y. Gavriel Ansara (University of Surrey).

Chapter 8: Queer Collisions of Medical Sex and Contemporary Arts Practice (pp. 123-141) written by Paul Woodland (Swansea Metropolitan University).

Chapter 9: Representing Ourselves to Others (pp. 142-160) written by Richard Ward (University of Manchester) and Ian Rivers (Brunel University London).

The book will be published by Cambridge Scholar Publishing with a paper run of 500 followed by an e-book.

Briefing Note 1: Bystanders

This short briefing note focuses on research I have conducted with colleagues in the U.K. and U.S. on bystander behaviour among secondary school students.

Briefing Note 2: Homophobic Bullying

This briefing note details the findings from two studies I conducted with Nathalie Noret on bullying behaviour, and the prevalence of homophobic bullying among secondary school students between 2003 and 2006.

Briefing Note 3: Cyberbullying

The third briefing note, focuses on the issue of cyberbullying and the data Nathalie Noret and I collated on text and e-mail bullying across five years.

Briefing Note 4: Why Do Kids Bully Others?

This briefing note arises out of a study conducted with 185 self-identified ‘bullies’ who answered questions about why they bullied other children and young people.

Briefing Note 5: Kids of Same-Sex Couples

This final note from the first series of briefings focuses on a group of 18 young people who were raised by same-sex couples (women) and how they compare in terms of psychological functioning and social support to a matched group of 18 young people raised be opposite-sex couples.

The 133 page Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) produced by the CDC’s Division of School and Adolescent Health (DASH), collated data from the Youth Risk Behavior Surveys (YRBS) of seven states (Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin) and six cities (Boston, Chicago, Milwaukee, NYC, San Diego, San Francisco) from 2001-2009. See image for a summary of key statistics.

Recent research I conducted with colleagues here in the U.K. suggests that youth who are poor at sport and also those you who LGBQ are very likely to be the targets of bullies at school. This research will be presented at this year’s American Psychological Association’s Annual Convention in Washington D.C. on the 6th August. Click on the image for a sneak preview of key findings.

School’s Out

“Classroom” can be accessed directly here, or at the following URL:

http://www.schools-out.org.uk/classroom/

Ben hopes to raise awareness of the issues of homophobia and bullying and to raise funds for the foundation.

While subsequently the Department of Education and Science argued that Section 28 did not affect the activities of school governors or teachers in talking about homosexuality objectively, Dame Jill Knight (now Baroness Knight of Collingtree), was reported to have said:

“This has got to be a mistake. The major point of it was to protect children in schools from having homosexuality thrust upon them.”

The text of Section 28 (2A) read as follows:

Prohibition on promoting homosexuality by teaching or by publishing material.

(1)A local authority shall not—

(a)intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality;

(b)promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship.

It is noteworthy that the current prime minister, David Cameron, apologized to the Country for this pernicious piece of legislation:

“I am sorry for Section 28. We got it wrong. It was an emotional issue. I hope you can forgive us.” (The Telegraph, 1st July, 2009).

So now we have Tennessee doing something very similar. The new act (access the original text here) states:

Section 1. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 49-6-1005, is amended by adding the following as new subsection (c) and by relettering the existing subsection (c) accordingly:
(c)
(1) The general assembly recognizes the sensitivity of particular subjects that are best explained and discussed in the home. Human sexuality is a complex subject with societal, scientific, psychological, and historical implications; those implications are best understood by children with sufficient maturity to grasp their complexity.

(2) Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, no public elementary or
middle school shall provide any instruction or material that discusses sexual orientation other than heterosexuality.
Section 2. This act shall take effect upon becoming a law, the public welfare requiring it.

Alas what Senator Campfield and those who supported him have failed to understand is that homophobic attitudes are not instilled in school but are instilled in the home, both directly and indirectly, by some parents, through media outlets and through those holding public office who, by the very act of ensuring that homosexuality cannot be discussed, give tacit approval to the promotion of homophobia as an acceptable attitude and thus cannot condone any behaviour associated with it.

While I claim no expertise on U.S. constitutional law, I understand fully that this new act does not demonstrate the magnanimity and duty of care that is enshrined within the Constitution. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment clearly states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

As Senator Campfield sits back and reflects upon his success, perhaps he should think on this: In 1996,  the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a school district in the State of Wisconsin violated a gay student’s right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment following an incident of bullying. In 2004, a school district in California was similarly found to be lacking when it was ruled that a school’s inaction in tackling homophobia constituted intentional discrimination.

The question I leave my U.S. readers with is this, if a school or district can be found to have acted unconstitutionally, can a state senator or indeed a state senate?

NOTE: Alas in the State of Tennessee the Governor’s right of veto can be overruled by a two-thirds majority. The vote for Senate Bill 49 to be passed was 19-11.

The text of the bill can be accessed here.

While Senator Campfield argues quite lucidly that parents should have a say in when issues of sexual orientation are introduced to their children in schools, this is a backward step and one that clearly suggests that, in elementary and middle schools in the State of Tennessee, homophobia will continue unabated.

Interestingly, in 1788 James Madison (1751-1836), later the Fourth President of the United States (1809-1817), and author of the Bill of Rights warned us of this sort of gradual erosion of freedom by those in positions of power when he said:

“I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”

What a wise man President Madison was and it would serve Senator Campfield well to reflect upon his attempts to usurp those freedoms that not only ensure the safety and well-being of the families of voters, but also those future voters who will become invisible to teachers and targets of bullies within Tennessee schools.

Of course, any such Government endorsed report on issues of sexuality, especially with respect to children, has to be both fair and balanced. It has to acknowledge that childhood and adolescence  is an apprenticeship, and as such we should also prepare children and young people for the realities of today’s world, no matter how much we wish to hark back to days gone by.

Unfortunately, the Papadopoulos Report was not received well by the media or, indeed, by other academics and social commentators. The columnist Toby Young, writing in The Telegraph, described it as resembling “a bit of cheap electioneering rather than a serious piece of research”.  Clarissa Smith (University of Sunderland) wrote that she had “no great hopes”  for the report and it “did not disappoint”. A copy of the Papadopoulos Report can be downloaded from the Home Office archive here. Two other reports were produced just prior to 2010, one from the US (which can be accessed here) and one from Australia (accessed here). Qualitatively there are significant difference between the report published in the UK and those published overseas.

So we wait to see what the Bailey Review will bring. A link the the Department of Education’s web-page for the review is provided here.

Students’ perceptions of their school climates are associated with psychosocial and academic adjustment. The present study examined the role of school strategies to promote safety in predicting students’ perceptions of safety for gender nonconforming peers among 1415 students in 28 high schools. Using multilevel modeling techniques, we examined student- and school-level effects on students’ perceptions of safety for gender nonconforming peers. We found that older students, bisexual youth, Latino youth, and youth who experienced school violence perceived their gender nonconforming male peers to be less safe. Similarly, we found that older students and students who experienced school violence and harassment due to gender nonconformity perceived their gender nonconforming female peers to be less safe. At the school-level, we found that when schools included lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) issues in the curriculum and had a Gay-Straight Alliance, students perceived their schools as safer for gender nonconforming male peers.

Reference: Toomey, R.B., McGuire, J.K., & Russell, S.T. (in press). Heteronormativity, school climates, and perceived safety for gender nonconforming peers. Journal of Adolescence.