DISPOSICIÓN N.º 102/DGPYCG/

There is not space within this study to examine the coming out literature in any depth but it seems useful to note that many discussions of coming out make links to Cass’s (1979, cited in Cass, 1996) six stage model of identity formation. Cass’s model or pathway commenced with ‘identity confusion’ (Cass, 1996, p 243): the idea that a homosexual label may be too distant from their own behaviour, desires and attitudes. It then moves through ‘identity comparison ... [and] identity tolerance ... “I probably am” [LGB] … identity acceptance ... identity pride ... [to] identity synthesis’ (Cass, 1996, p240-244). Cass did not view coming out as an easy pathway and suggested there may be struggles as well as positive realisations through this coming out pathway. Cass’s model has been critiqued as being a male-focussed identity formation model that over-emphasised the importance of sexual activity and ignored the importance of community in LGBQ identity formation (Schneider, 2001). More recent literature suggests that these coming-out stages may have changed since there has been more visibility of LGBT issues (Casey, 2002; Russell, Clarke & Clary, 2009; Morgan, 2013). The coming-out literature has also been critiqued as being overly focussed on psychological models and not sufficiently taking into account sociological perspectives on being out (Orne, 2011). Orne, in contrast to Cass, suggests that deciding to come out or not is a strategic decision with advantages and disadvantages for either decision. Orne emphasises that taking control of the situation allowed gay young men to become ‘strategic actors [within their own lives] capable of making complex decisions and balancing several competing interests’ (Orne, 2011, p685). Orne, along with other writers (Trotter, 2001; Weeks, Heaphy, & Donovan, 2001; Casey, 2002; Valentine, Skelton & Butler, 2003; Almack, 2007; Devlin, 2015), emphasises that coming out is a process, often a difficult process, which is managed for ‘different audiences ... in different ways’ (Orne, 2011, p690). Orne’s model suggests usefully four different strategies with regard to disclosure of LGBQ sexuality: ‘direct disclosure, clues, concealment and speculation’ (Orne, 2011, p689).

It is clear that the nature and context of the organisation in which LGBQ people are working impacts on their decision to be closet or out regarding their sexual identity. The culture of an organisation is central when employees are making the decision to be out or closeted (Ward and Winstanley, 2005). Organisations that have clear and supportive policies for LGBQ employees make it safer and easier for employees to share their LGBQ identity with colleagues (Ward and Winstanley, 2005; Colgan, Creegan, McKearney & Wright, 2007; Colgan, Creegan, McKearney & Wright, 2008; Stonewall, 2018c ) although it seems that lesbian women often choose to work in

58 | P a g e

career pathways and in organisations that are LGBQ friendly (Colgan et al, 2008). In organisations that have outward facing contact with the public, such as the police or fire service, employees have more issues to consider (Colgan et al, 2008). The fact that teachers often do not feel safe in terms of how the parents or pupils might respond if they were open about their LGBQ identity (Colgan et al, 2007) is of particular relevance to this research. Employees usually only choose to be out to some of their colleagues or within the ‘pockets of safety’ (Colgan et al, 2008, p40). Deciding who to tell will depend on the closeness of relationships with these colleagues (Ward and Winstanley, 2005). It is important to note that there are often more challenges for LGBQ employees who are BAME or disabled as they may choose not to face a range of challenges in their workplace (Colgan et al, 2008).

There seems to be consensus in the literature that the average age at which young women became aware of their same-sex sexual attraction was between ten and eleven and that LGBQ sexual activity usually commences between the ages of fourteen and sixteen (D’Augelli, 1996; Diamond & Savin-Williams, 2000; Neill & Meehan, 2017). However, some sources note that these averages hide a wide variety of ages for individuals (Schneider, 2001) and the age at which young people are coming out is getting younger (Lee, 2015). It is accepted that there is less homophobia and biphobia than in past years (Valentine et al, 2003) and more acceptance of same-sex relationships (Monro, 2015; Moore, 2015; Formby, 2017), especially amongst young people (Scourfield, Roen & McDermott, 2008; Rusell et al, 2009). However, coming out for a young person who is also negotiating the usual challenging transitions from adolescence to adulthood is still ‘difficult and risky’ (Valentine et al, 2003, p480).

There is growing evidence of the importance of not overstating the difficulty of coming out (Dhaenens, 2013; Formby, 2015; Postuvan, Podlogar, Sedivy & De Leo, 2019) as many young people negotiate this process developing ‘resilience’ and life affirming results (Formby, 2015, p627). In supporting young people to be confident about their LGBT sexuality it is suggested that a focus on the structural model of oppression is useful (Formby, 2013): so noting that institutions within society, rather than the individual, need to adapt to minimise this oppression. However, in many settings the medical model of sexuality is used. This can lead to LGBT young people being seen as the problem and so being offered counselling or other one-to-one support rather than being championed in their challenging of the oppressive system (Dhaenens, 2013; Formby, 2013).

59 | P a g e

The above discussions focusing on the historical development of ideas around sexuality and the debates of the ideas around performativity, agency, heteronormativity, homophobia and biphobia and coming out now make way for an examination of queer theory and its relevance within this study.