The Demean Treatment Of Members Of The Lgbt Community

The heartless and demean treatment to which members of the LGBT community have been subjected, makes their desire to achieve greater visibility more threatening to those who wish to repress them (McLaughin, 2012). In an interview of gay and lesbian adolescents and young adults in the Southern pole of Africa, conjugate the experience of victimization by both peers and colleagues (Butler, 2003). Moreover, the recent peer victimization related to sexual orientation was independently associated with higher risk of depression and suicidal ideation. LGBT adolescents who suffered peer victimization reported more suicidal ideation and attempts than heterosexual peers who were victim just as often (Birkett, 2009; Bontempo & D’ Augelli, 2002; Espelage, 2008).

In the study of Wyss (2004) he identified the following result associated with peer victimization: feelings of fearfulness, powerlessness, anxiety and anger; academic difficulties; school drop-out; self-injury; lowered self-esteem and suicidal feelings and attempts. These participants in the study had also reported coping with peer victimization through the use of avoidance strategies such as cutting classes, self defense strategies (vigilance) and the used of drugs and alcohol drinks. Although some individuals like transgender participants said they received a helping hand from LGB people at their schools. In addition, rejection of classmates and teachers victimization at school was consociated with feelings of shame (Grossman and D’ Augelli, 2006).

As a matter of fact, transgender participants reported that in group discussions that mostly people in their lives expressed their reactions negatively to their self-gender non-conforming behavior, not only that but also school was a site of verbal harassment, assault, being prepositional for sex, or being called by their last name after indicating that chosen name was preferable (Grossman & D’ Iugelli, 2006). Altogether there is a solid evidence that those who are victimized by peers shows a lower sense of belonging to their schools and much high levels of depressive symptoms (Levy, 2008; Poteat and Espelage, 2007; Poteat et al., 2011).Not to mention sexual minorities have worse health result and risk behaviors when compared to heterosexual men and women (Institute of Medicine, 2011). Gay and Bisexual men are at the point of greater risk than heterosexual men because they may developed anal cancer (IOM, 2011).

In the same way, these minorities are at greater risk for a variety of mental disorders, substance use disorder and suicide attempts ( Herek &a Garnets, 2007; King, Semlyen, Tai, et al., 2008; Meyer, 2003). In addition, general studies suggested evidences that the health of bisexual men and women maybe unpleasant than lesbians or gay men. For instance, bisexual women were less likely to have health insurance, were more or likely to be the present smokers and to binge drink, have worse self-reported general health, and had reported greater perceived stress and depressive symptoms (Goldsen, Kim, Barkan, Balasam, &a Mincer, 2011). Despite the considerable study demonstrating unlikeness with heterosexuals, not all LGB youths report substance use, showing that sexual orientation alone was not responsible for the disparity and giving the cue that other risk or protective factors regarding to sexual orientation may be involved ( Hughes & Eliason, 2002).

Among the factors that may contribute to poor health among LGB people is the nondisclosure of LGB identity to healthcare providers. Specifically, healthcare providers who are unaware of a patient’s sexual orientation may not be given the right education for the patient about the relevant issues, even if they have the intellect about the health issues concerning sexual minority populations (Labig &a Peterson, 2006).Conversely, healthcare providers who knew those patients specifically male who had same-sex partners were more likely to be recommend testing and vaccinations regarding HIV and other sexually transmitted disease (Petroll & Mosack 2012). On the other hand, a proportion of LGB adults do not voluntarily disclose their sexual orientation to healthcare providers ( Bernstein, 2008; Petroll & Mosack, 2011).

With this intention disclosure of sexual orientation was also related to an LGB people who experiences of minority stress. It posits that LGB-identified people were under unique and chronic stress and that this stress contributed to the development of poor health (Frost, Lehavot, &a Meyer, 2011). As such, disclosure to sexual orientation has been hypothesized all around the world that it associates increase of self-esteem, social support ang psychological adjustment among LGB populations (D’ Augelli, Grossman, & Starks, 2005).

In contrast, LGB youths oftentimes disclosed to a close friend before disclosing to family members and parents (Beals & Peplau, 2006), and in spite of the fact that friends’ reaction tend to be accepting, many LGB youths thought about losing friends due to their sexual orientation (Diamond & Lucas, 2004). Unsurprisingly that the main reasons for the LGB youths report for not disclosing to parents was fear of negative reactions and rejections (D’ Augelli et al., 2005). Clearly, the psychological behavioral implication of disclosure should differ depending on whether the reaction is either one of the acceptance versus rejection ( Corrigan & Matthews, 2003). In essence, accepting reactions lead to boosted self-esteem and more support as noted above, then such accepting reactions should be an example as a stress-buffering key to protect youths from the negative consequences of rejecting reactions ( Wills & Fegan, 2001).

Gender Identity is one of the most crucial part of societal formation. In terms of gender, many societies, including the ourselves, adhere strictly to a male/female binary which confirms people as either male or female. This normative gender binary arrangement maintains conformity and limits non binary gender only identifies by providing two mutually exclusive choices of gender identity ( Dietert & Dentice, 2009). Binary gender arrangements are reinforced and reconfirmed when people was involved in such activities and behaviors such as dress codes, use of restrooms and locker facilities, and self-presentation to authority figures (Dietert & Dentice, 2009). Vidal-Ortiz (2002) found that gender binary intellect is embedded in social institutions and outcomes in general expectation that biological sex alone describe a person’s gender identity. Binaries also served as a form of “discourse” that can be describe as both linguistic and applied. In linguistics system, binaries impact societal norms that in turn classify the practices undertaken in any given culture.

For this reason, in Western Culture, heterosexual/homosexual binary guides the notion that heterosexuality is the “normal” expression of oneself. The outcome is that homosexual individuals face discrimination and ridicule for not conforming to the expectations of mainstream society (Dietert & Dentice, 2009). As Seidman (2003) states, “Unnatural sexualities are considered ‘bad’ and ‘immoral’ and, accordingly, should not be tolerated; individuals who exhibit unnatural desires are punished; they are subject to criminal sanction or denied rights and respect.” In contrast to what Seidman said Pyles (2012) pointed out that “Telling s person that his or her sexual orientation is deviant, shameful, or wrong in a therapeutic setting is not free speech; it is a malpractice.” In the long run, progress towards equality is being made on many points, sexual minority’s are still far from winning true equality. LGBT youth were the most vulnerable members of our society and certainly the least protected inasmuch as they lack the autonomy and power to act on their perfect interest (Curial & Atala, 2012).