While the research presented has highlighted the negative effects of bullying and has substantiated the need for interventions that attempt to prevent or address this issue, the research that follows highlights the need to consider GSB as a unique sub-type. Separate consideration is key given the escalated consequences that impact targets of this form of bullying, not to mention the more frequent exposure to bullying that sexual minority and gender non-conforming students face. Such increased frequency is well documented in the literature (Cénat, Blais, Hébert, Lavoie and Guerrier, 2015; Robinson & Espelage, 2011; Swearer, Turner, and Givens, 2008; Williams, Connolly, Pepler, and Craig, 2003; 2005).
Aside from facing greater exposure to bullying, research suggests that those who
experience bias-based harassment tend to face worse mental health outcomes than those youth who face harassment not based on such biases (Russell, Sinclair, Poteat and
Koenig, 2012). Looking at those targeted for their gender/sexual identity markers, worse mental health outcomes were found for students who had self-labelled at a younger age, were “out” amongst their peers, or were more identifiable as a sexual minority or presented as gender atypical (Pilkington & D’Augelli, 1995).
At the more extreme end of mental health consequences, research has found that sexual minority youth reported a higher prevalence of depressive symptoms and suicidality
when compared to their heterosexual peers (Burton, Marshal, Chisolm, Sucato, & Friedman, 2013). This was partially explained by the higher levels of sexual minority victimization. Additionally, for those who do reach the stage of contemplating suicide, the situation becomes even more dire. Rivers (2001a as cited in Varjas et al., 2008) found that 53 percent of the gay, lesbian, and bisexual participants in his study had contemplated suicide given their experiences with bullying. Of those who had
contemplated suicide, 40 percent had attempted suicide at least once, and 75 percent of those who attempted did so more than once.
While the longitudinal research is limited, Toomey, Ryan, Diaz, Card, and Russell (2010) can attest to the long-term nature of negative mental health outcomes. In their
retrospective study of 245 LGBT young adults, the researchers found that not only did the negative impacts of homophobic bullying impact students at the time of those experiences, but this was also significantly associated with negative psychosocial adjustment and lasting impacts extending into young adult years. According to their research, this long-term impact also had the potential to impact one’s quality and ability or capacity to enjoy life.
Academically as well, schools are often a negative place for gender and sexual minority youth and experiencing bullying in such contexts can have negative implications for student success. For example, Swearer et al. (2008) found that boys who are bullied by being called gay tend to hold more negative perceptions of the school climate, and in a survey of 350 sexual minority youths, D’Augelli, Pilkington and Hershberger (2002) found that up to half of respondents experienced verbal abuse in high school because of their sexual orientation. Peter and Taylor’s (2013) study of Canadian students found that compared to the 15 percent of heterosexual students who reported as such, 78 percent of transgender and 62 percent of sexual minority students felt unsafe at school. Such research clearly demonstrates how the educational environment can be an unwelcoming, if not hostile, place for SGM youth, in part due to the presence of GSB.
When faced with such unwelcoming contexts, some students have been shown to engage in avoidance tactics. In Peter and Taylor’s (2013) study, 30 percent of sexual and gender
minority students reported avoidance behaviours in the form of skipping school due to feeling unsafe either on the way to, or while at school. This was particularly true for transgender participants who were most likely to have skipped over ten days of school. Peter and Taylor (2013) also found that feelings towards school attachment were further impacted by experiences of homophobic or transphobic bullying.
Another important finding is that absenteeism is likely to begin at younger ages for sexual minority youth than for heterosexual youth. In Robinson and Espelage’s (2011) study of students from Wisconsin, the researchers found that about 22 percent of
surveyed LGBTQ students had already begun skipping school in the middle school years compared to seven percent of their sampled heterosexual peers, which later doubled to 14 percent during the high school years, while sexual minority student rates of absenteeism remained stable from middle school to high school.
Faced with hostile school contexts and employing coping strategies that may involve avoidance tactics means that later educational transitions could be negatively impacted. Research has suggested that students who experienced high levels of victimization based on their gender or sexual identity were more likely to report plans that did not involve pursuing any type of post-secondary education compared to those students who had experienced low levels of victimization (Kosciw, Greytak, Diaz & Bartkiewicz, 2010). Aragon et al. (2014) have also found that the victimization of LGBTQ students also partially impacts intentions to finish high school and attend a four-year college, although the authors contend that more research is needed to investigate the motivations of
LGBTQ students.
From the above literature, it is clear that the consequences of bullying, and GSB in particular, are severe and far-reaching. This provides the necessary support for current intervention initiatives, and further highlights the need to consider sub-types of bullying that may result in differential impacts on certain groups. Based on this need for
intervention, schools have worked on addressing this issue and a variety of anti-bullying initiatives have been introduced in schools around the world. In order to contextualize the current study and to provide a baseline understanding that can be used to determine
improvements, it is important to consider what is currently being done in the Ontario context to address the issue of bullying and to target identity-based forms such as GSB. Furthermore, it is beneficial to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the current initiatives based on existing literature and by considering the potential issues that arise with the implementation of Ministry expectations in everyday school contexts. Once this information has been presented, a theoretical explanation of the issue can be used to further illustrate why anti-bullying measures are likely to be limited in their effectiveness when it comes to addressing bullying. Theoretically framing how the heteronormative school context enables GSB will also illustrate how further changes at an institutional level need to be made to better prevent GSB and also build resilience amongst the SGM students to mitigate the negative consequences associated with being a target.