Gay teen faces expulsion for defense via stungun

[Bassoon]

I see you're talking about something no one else is. The kid isn't being told to not be gay, nor to be more white. He's being told (and supposedly only after other efforts have failed) to moderate his dress in acknowledgement of the dangers associated with wearing his preferred clothing. And yeah, if I'm paying for a multisensor, centrally controlled remotely monitored alarm system, and paying the regular charge to have it monitored, and regardless of that fact also remembering to keep lights on timers while I'm away from home, and closing curtains at night so people can't see valuables in my rooms, and installing and using heavy duty locks, I'd say that's a bigger ask than a kid not being able to wear a skirt 100% of all the time, but instead to wear pants during school hours.

NEITHER should be necessary. But that doesn't mean neither is a sensible course of action, either to take or to recommend to somebody else.

What he chooses to wear to school has no bearing on the other students' abilities to learn. It is his right to wear what he pleases. Because he attends a public school that does not have a uniform policy, he may wear whatever clothing is acceptable under the school's code of conduct, regardless of whether that makes him a target. You're right. Neither should be necessary. But by forcing them to be necessary by never pushing for change, their un-necessity will always be a cloud dream. If you don't teach kids that people who cross-dress are people too by taking away the cross-dresser's right to cross dress, then the kids' exposure to cross-dressers go down, and so does their tolerance. School is there to socialize the youth, and part of that means exposure to minority culture.

The school had been trying to help Young, who transferred there last year, Yarrell said, by recommending that he "tone down" his accessories.

He doesn't need to come to school in a sports uniform, there are a lot of gender neutral clothing out there. If you wear clothing that doesn't make you stand out, other kids might not be so afraid to hang around with you. No one wants to be friends with the "freak", even if that label is unjustified. If he is in a very large high school, then taking away a major point of difference makes him blend in a little better.

What I stated above applies to this as well. Unless schools start accepting the "freak" then the "freak" will never become normalized in society and will continue to be shunned.

[M.C.]

I dunno about you, but I'd choose/I chose to not get beaten up over being a representative from minority 'x'.

[Bassoon]

I dunno about you, but I'd choose/I chose to not get beaten up over being a representative from minority 'x'.

That's fantastic! I'm very happy for you. But I think it's about time society made accommodations for people who don't fit the status quo. Screw being the butt of jokes. Screw being beaten up for who we are. Why the hell does anyone else have the right to express themselves, but not the minorities?

I get where you're coming from, I truly do. But it's not fair for the majority to have the right to express themselves openly without fear of attack while the minority have to sit in silence because otherwise they'll get beaten up. Yeah, I get it. "Life isn't fair." That may be the case, but shouldn't we try to make it a bit more fair, rather than just leaving it the way it is?

[yoni45]

That's fantastic! I'm very happy for you. But I think it's about time society made accommodations for people who don't fit the status quo. Screw being the butt of jokes. Screw being beaten up for who we are. Why the hell does anyone else have the right to express themselves, but not the minorities?

I get where you're coming from, I truly do. But it's not fair for the majority to have the right to express themselves openly without fear of attack while the minority have to sit in silence because otherwise they'll get beaten up. Yeah, I get it. "Life isn't fair." That may be the case, but shouldn't we try to make it a bit more fair, rather than just leaving it the way it is?

Try to make it more fair -- just don't do it by putting other people at the risk of getting beat up.

[Bassoon]

Try to make it more fair -- just don't do it by putting other people at the risk of getting beat up.

I'm not saying anyone should get beaten up. In fact, I'm saying the opposite. Nobody should get beaten up, because it is up to the schools to A) Protect children from harm, be it kidnappers, gunmen, or in this case, other children, and B) Socialize children, which means introducing them to many aspects of cultural integration, including interacting with minorities. The schools must be the ones to stop the bullying, and the schools must be the ones to teach tolerance.

[Princess Marzipan]

I dunno about you, but I'd choose/I chose to not get beaten up over being a representative from minority 'x'.

Congratulations on your flashing neon privilege.

[gmalivuk]

I dunno about you, but I'd choose/I chose to not get beaten up over being a representative from minority 'x'.

Congratulations on your flashing neon privilege.

The "I chose" bit suggests M.C. was in a similar situation, though, so I think the extent of their privilege was simply to be able to more easily tone down whatever behaviors were being targeted by bullies.

Yes, this privilege shouldn't be overlooked, because it's easy to say someone should dress or act differently if for you it was just a personal taste, while the other person might be extremely uncomfortable dressing and acting in ways that feel very wrong to them. But it is different from similar advice coming from a poster who was never themselves bullied, or who was at least never targeted for some unchanging aspect of their identity such as sexual orientation.

[Princess Marzipan]

See also skin color, gender.

(For clarity's sake: not everything that gets you singled out can even be changed in the first place, so suggesting it as a solution to bullying is a non-starter.)

[yoni45]

I'm not saying anyone should get beaten up. In fact, I'm saying the opposite. Nobody should get beaten up, because it is up to the schools to A) Protect children from harm, be it kidnappers, gunmen, or in this case, other children, and B) Socialize children, which means introducing them to many aspects of cultural integration, including interacting with minorities. The schools must be the ones to stop the bullying, and the schools must be the ones to teach tolerance.

That's all nice and dandy, but while you're busy working on that, try not telling gay kids at risk of getting pummeled that they shouldn't lay low because they "should" be protected by the authorities or because of some rights they apparently have.

[Nordic Einar]

So, how many gay kids are we sacrificing for this 'be-yourself' cause?

The fact that this was said to me, someone who has spent the last 6 years of his life doing almost nothing but direct service queer activism including fighting school administrations like this one to protect kids like Young and providing services to kids like Young when the schools inevitably fail is particularly fucking hilarious.

These aren't "gay kids" for me, in case you didn't know. They're my family, my cousin, my partners, myself and my fucking community. And they're dying regardless of whether or not we stand up to the kind of bullshit people in this thread are pushing. How many kids have you helped bury because of administrations like this one? How many have you helped learn to accept who they are and live in safety?

Since when is wearing feminine apparel intrinsic to being gay? Telling him that he might want to wear clothes that make him stand out less is not trying to repress his gayness, it's equivalent to getting someone to stop wearing political slogans on their shirt.

You obviously cannot get someone to be less gay, but it is entirely reasonable to suggest someone to dress less provocatively.

For a lot of people, wearing feminine apparel and having feminine mannerisms is intrinsic to being gay. Sexual orientation and gender expression aren't identical, but that doesn't mean they don't often intersect. There are lots of gay men who are incapable of being "masculine"; their voices, the way they move their arms and hands, and the way they talk are inherently feminine. They cannot pass as straight, and incidentally? There are lots of heterosexual kids who are mistaken as gay for the same reasons. Not everyone can just turn that off. Nor should they have to. I'm tired of LGBT kids - and it's really often trans* kids - being forced to apologizing for existing and having the right to exist safely rest solely on their shoulders.

Being gay!=Being effeminate. Being effeminate!=need to wear girls clothes. If he was transgender, it would be different, but his desire to wear female apparel is no more intrinsic to his identity than someone who identifies as a "goth".

You have an incredibly narrow view of gender expression and sexuality.

I'm always amused at the idea that kids wear clothes that get their ass kicked because they enjoy getting their ass kicked. I really want one all gay school to beat up some guy for wearing a Koby Bryant jersey and then maybe this discussion becomes less amusing and more serious.

Fucking this. I wonder if this fora would suggest "wearing less masculine clothing" to a masculine heterosexual cis person would be a reasonable suggestion then.

Advising gay kids to stay closeted in high-school is just good advise, they can be awful awful places. But they should be able to be themselves (all kids really) and express themselves freely.

No, advising them to stay in the closet is awful advice. The only people in the position to decide whether or not coming out of the closet is in a gay kids best interest is the gay kid. Being in the closet has significant mental and physical health consequences, and it's up to the individual to decide if the consequences of coming out are worth alleviating the negative effects of being in the closet. But the right to come out, and the right to have his gender identity, expression, and sexual orientation respected is a human right. "It's hard to protect gay kids" isn't an excuse not to protect them, anymore than "It's hard to protect black kids" isn't an excuse not to protect them.

As an aside, where has it been said that "female apparel" = a dress? Because I'm pretty sure when my boyfriend and I are harassed for "dressing like a woman" it's the skinny jeans they're speaking of, considering neither of us wear a dress or skirt.

I dunno about you, but I'd choose/I chose to not get beaten up over being a representative from minority 'x'.

Bolding mine. Good for you! Many women choose not to wear revealing clothing to reduce the likelihood of being harassed on the street. That doesn't mean that when a woman is beaten or sexually assaulted while wearing a skirt "don't wear a miniskirt you slut" is an appropriate response. You did make, or you would make, a decision for yourself. That has fuck-all to do with what Young chooses to do, and it's Young's decision. That decision deserves to be respected.

Try to make it more fair -- just don't do it by putting other people at the risk of getting beat up.

I wasn't aware any of us were forcing gay teens to become flaming homosexuals against their will and demanding they do everything they can to stand out. I was under the impression we were just respecting their agency and not demanding they hide themselves from the world so bigots don't get upset.

Cool strawman, bro.

[Bassoon]

I'm not saying anyone should get beaten up. In fact, I'm saying the opposite. Nobody should get beaten up, because it is up to the schools to A) Protect children from harm, be it kidnappers, gunmen, or in this case, other children, and B) Socialize children, which means introducing them to many aspects of cultural integration, including interacting with minorities. The schools must be the ones to stop the bullying, and the schools must be the ones to teach tolerance.

That's all nice and dandy, but while you're busy working on that, try not telling gay kids at risk of getting pummeled that they shouldn't lay low because they "should" be protected by the authorities or because of some rights they apparently have.

I'm going to direct you to the post that Nordic Einar just posted, because Nordic summed it up quite nicely. I tried to lay low and got pummeled anyway. Here's the deal: it doesn't fucking matter if you're gay, trans*, or whatever. If they choose to see you that way, they WILL see you that way, regardless of whether you are gay, trans* or whatever. This is why anti-bullying laws are being put into place, not anti-bullying-LGBT-kids laws. Everyone suffers from bullying. Not just queers. Not just blacks. Not just women. Anyone perceived as a minority suffers, whether or not they actually have qualities relating to the stereotype of that minority.

[yoni45]

The fact that this was said to me, someone who has spent the last 6 years of his life doing almost nothing but direct service queer activism including fighting school administrations like this one to protect kids like Young and providing services to kids like Young when the schools inevitably fail is particularly fucking hilarious.

These aren't "gay kids" for me, in case you didn't know. They're my family, my cousin, my partners, myself and my fucking community. And they're dying regardless of whether or not we stand up to the kind of bullshit people in this thread are pushing. How many kids have you helped bury because of administrations like this one? How many have you helped learn to accept who they are and live in safety?

I'm not particularly sure how any of that is relevant to the bad advice you suggested for the sake of fighting your war.

If you're not willing to consider advice that might mitigate harm to gay people because they "shouldn't have to" follow it in an ideal situation, then you're essentially more concerned with putting them up as cannon fodder for your cause instead of with their actual security. Which, is cool if that's a sacrifice they want to undertake, but I'd imagine many of these people just want to get through a given phase in life with minimal harm to them.

I'm going to direct you to the post that Nordic Einar just posted, because Nordic summed it up quite nicely. I tried to lay low and got pummeled anyway. Here's the deal: it doesn't fucking matter if you're gay, trans*, or whatever. If they choose to see you that way, they WILL see you that way, regardless of whether you are gay, trans* or whatever. This is why anti-bullying laws are being put into place, not anti-bullying-LGBT-kids laws. Everyone suffers from bullying. Not just queers. Not just blacks. Not just women. Anyone perceived as a minority suffers, whether or not they actually have qualities relating to the stereotype of that minority.

I'm somehow having a hard time believing that your situation wouldn't have been worse had you chosen to be particularly flamboyant in your behavior, particularly visible among others, standing out, etc.

Perhaps I'm wrong on this -- but even if I am, I can't really say advice telling you not to be such things as being unreasonable, even if misguided.

[BattleMoose]

Advising gay kids to stay closeted in high-school is just good advise, they can be awful awful places. But they should be able to be themselves (all kids really) and express themselves freely.

No, advising them to stay in the closet is awful advice.

Says you and MC.

The only people in the position to decide whether or not coming out of the closet is in a gay kids best interest is the gay kid. Being in the closet has significant mental and physical health consequences, and it's up to the individual to decide if the consequences of coming out are worth alleviating the negative effects of being in the closet.

I think its fairly safe to assume that a young teenager has no fucking clue what the potential consequences of coming out in highschool are. Its also not something that one can undo later. Suicide is also very bad for ones mental and physical well being and when gay teen suicides are brought within the national average it might be an indicator that their level of bullying is no longer horrifically disproportionate.

Really, how can the both of you guys be so sure, that coming out in highschool will lead to better highschool experience? Because suicide rates point very strongly in the other direction.

But the right to come out, and the right to have his gender identity, expression, and sexual orientation respected is a human right. "It's hard to protect gay kids" isn't an excuse not to protect them, anymore than "It's hard to protect black kids" isn't an excuse not to protect them.

Preaching to the choir. Having rights and recognizing that they aren't being upheld aren't mutually exclusive concepts.

[Bassoon]

You're arguing that the problem lies with the victim. That is victim blaming. It is not the victim's fault that people are bullying them. It is the bully's fault for bullying the victim. The suicide rates point to a problem of bullying in our schools, not to a problem with coming out to early. The suicide rates point to a societal problem with acceptance of queer youth, not to a LGBT problem of coming out too early. It is not right to blame the queer youth for wanting truth and openness in their lives. It is wrong for society to tell them that they cannot have truth and openness in their lives because they are queer.

[Lucrece]

Telling him someone to be "less flamboyant" goes beyond telling them to wear more gender-typical apparel. Flamboyant is often used as well for mannerisms, and as I said before making him wear masculine clothes would be akin to pig with make-up because his voice pitch and assibilation and hand gesticulation would still see him targeted.

I don't believe the school was asking him to be less flamboyant.

I have linked pages before a site with a larger collection of articles AND AN INTERVIEW WITH THE TEEN HIMSELF saying the school and police told him to be less flamboyant. Yet people insist with the OP article as if it were the only source of information, and the teen is defaulted to a liar and only what one article reports the school told him is fact.

[yoni45]

You're arguing that the problem lies with the victim. That is victim blaming. It is not the victim's fault that people are bullying them. It is the bully's fault for bullying the victim. The suicide rates point to a problem of bullying in our schools, not to a problem with coming out to early. The suicide rates point to a societal problem with acceptance of queer youth, not to a LGBT problem of coming out too early. It is not right to blame the queer youth for wanting truth and openness in their lives. It is wrong for society to tell them that they cannot have truth and openness in their lives because they are queer.

There's nothing wrong with telling people that the world sucks and that having truth and openness might also lead to bullying and abuse.

And frankly, not giving people a stern warning if the situation merits it is downright negligent, regardless of whose "at fault".

[BattleMoose]

Spoiler:

You're arguing that the problem lies with the victim.

I most certainly am not.

It is not the victim's fault that people are bullying them.

Preaching to the choir.

It is the bully's fault for bullying the victim.

Preaching to the choir.

The suicide rates point to a problem of bullying in our schools, not to a problem with coming out to early.

Preaching to the choir.

The suicide rates point to a societal problem with acceptance of queer youth, not to a LGBT problem of coming out too early.

Preaching to the choir.

It is not right to blame the queer youth for wanting truth and openness in their lives.

I most certainly did not blame any queer youth for wanting truth and openness in their lives.

It is wrong for society to tell them that they cannot have truth and openness in their lives because they are queer.

Preaching to the choir.

That was an unhelpful way to respond -- Zamfir

Okay, now that we have done with that. Can you please pause and try to entertain the idea, that outcomes for an individual might be better served by firstly recognizing that high school is a awful place for any kind of minority and secondly that it might be a good idea to not be identified as one.

[Nordic Einar]

I'm not particularly sure how any of that is relevant to the bad advice you suggested for the sake of fighting your war.

If you're not willing to consider advice that might mitigate harm to gay people because they "shouldn't have to" follow it in an ideal situation, then you're essentially more concerned with putting them up as cannon fodder for your cause instead of with their actual security. Which, is cool if that's a sacrifice they want to undertake, but I'd imagine many of these people just want to get through a given phase in life with minimal harm to them.

Actually, "go back into the closet" is advice that can lead to higher levels of suicidality among LGBT teen, since being in the closet has significant psychological harms associated with it. It's up to the individual teen to decide whether or not those harms are worth the safety - or perceived safety - of being in the closet may bring. Unsurprisingly, lots of gay teens are willing to risk bullying and violence over the closet because of how awful being in the closet can be.

This is a decision they make, and it's my job to help them deal with those consequences - which yes, often includes violence - and also work to change the environments and institutions that allow that violence to foster. A gay kid doesn't need to be told "you might get beaten up less if you stay in the closet". We fucking know that.

I'm somehow having a hard time believing that your situation wouldn't have been worse had you chosen to be particularly flamboyant in your behavior, particularly visible among others, standing out, etc.

Perhaps I'm wrong on this -- but even if I am, I can't really say advice telling you not to be such things as being unreasonable, even if misguided.

You are. You're speaking from a point of privilege, and having queer folks informing you of their lived experiences and the fact that being out or closeted in high school is vastly more complicated than "Closet = Safety". The phrase "The closet kills" exists for a reason.

Advising gay kids to stay closeted in high-school is just good advise, they can be awful awful places. But they should be able to be themselves (all kids really) and express themselves freely.

No, advising them to stay in the closet is awful advice.

Says you and MC.

Actually, says a fuckton of research on the psychological effects of being in the closet. But it's cool, I'm sure The Straight Folks in this thread know more about being gay in High School than the gays, particularly those who work with queer youth.

Incidentally, and I'm sure I'll repeat this in a second, but I'm not actually advising youth one way or another on whether or not to come out. I'm suggesting only the youth themselves can make that decision, determine if it's the right one, and they're well aware of the risks associated with coming out. What I'm saying is that once a youth has come out of the closet "Shut the fuck up faggot and go back in so you don't get beaten" is terrible goddamn fucking advice, and we should work to improve the environment that youth now exists in. Lets start by holding bullies and the people who enable them accountable. Victim blaming is never okay.

I think its fairly safe to assume that a young teenager has no fucking clue what the potential consequences of coming out in highschool are. Its also not something that one can undo later. Suicide is also very bad for ones mental and physical well being and when gay teen suicides are brought within the national average it might be an indicator that their level of bullying is no longer horrifically disproportionate.

Really, how can the both of you guys be so sure, that coming out in highschool will lead to better highschool experience? Because suicide rates point very strongly in the other direction.

I think it's fairly safe to assume that you have no fucking idea what you're talking about. As a gay man who was once a gay teenager, as someone who works a great deal with queer youth, and as someone who ends up supporting the youth in question regardless of the decision they make, I am telling you gay teens are well fucking aware of the consequences of coming out. This includes both coming out in school, coming out to their parents, or coming out to close friends. Trust me, we fucking know what we risk.

I can tell you have no idea what you're talking about because you link gay youth suicide with bullying, but are apparently unaware that being in the closet raises the risk factor significantly for suicide and the single largest protective factor against LGBT suicide is family acceptance UPON coming out. Gay youth suicide is linked to bullying, but it's also linked to homelessness, non-school related violence, family rejection, discrimination, and being in the closet.

[Ghostbear]

If you're not willing to consider advice that might mitigate harm to gay people because they "shouldn't have to" follow it in an ideal situation, then you're essentially more concerned with putting them up as cannon fodder for your cause instead of with their actual security. Which, is cool if that's a sacrifice they want to undertake, but I'd imagine many of these people just want to get through a given phase in life with minimal harm to them.

I don't think you actually understand what you're suggesting or why people are disagreeing with it. For one, when your solution is "stop acting gay", then that's where your solution is going to stop. After the person has stopped acting like themselves, if it has any success (and it very easily could have zero success) the people in charge of preventing bullying are going to see that the bullying is gone and decide to not do anything further. In this scenario, not only have the bullies won (as the person in question is no longer able to express themselves safely) but you've also instituted a policy whereby if something isn't popular enough, we can threaten, humiliate, beat, harass, or otherwise make miserable the people that express that opinion until they go away. It creates a "might makes right" scenario for people expressing themselves. This also has a carryover effect, where since people are being effectively permitted to harass opinions away, nobody is actually being made to interact with it. They aren't made to realize that those people are just that -- people. Since nobody actually interacts with that expression, nobody becomes accepting of it, meaning that it stays a problem for us indefinitely.

For another, you also assume that your solution will be successful. The bullies were already harassing this kid daily -- they aren't going to care if he suddenly changes his clothes to be more "normal". They'll could just as easily see blood in the water: if they can make him change his expressions of himself with their present level of harassment, then they'll think they could do even more with more harassment.

For another another, you assume that it's readily plausible for him to change his expressions of himself. He might not be able to change his mannerisms with any degree of success. Or, if he is unable to be comfortable dressing or acting different, or is just unable to change his mannerisms, it could easily cause just as bad psychological trauma or adversely affect his ability to study and learn, causing him to not get an equal education. This would make the solution not a solution at all, because it's just hiding the problem.

For another another another, regardless of if it is meant to be, such lines of thought always descend into victim blaming in practice. It just ends in people saying "Well, not dressing so gay worked for little Timmy, why can't this kid do the same? It's his fault if he isn't willing to tone it down.". It puts the onus on not being beaten up on the victim -- it makes it his responsibility (which is somewhat ironic, seeing as how it was forced to be his responsibility anyway, and his response was to decide to defend himself instead of rollover and die) to make people not want to harass and assault him, and it requires him to do it in a way that doesn't make people have to deal with him being himself.

[Lucrece]

The fact that this was said to me, someone who has spent the last 6 years of his life doing almost nothing but direct service queer activism including fighting school administrations like this one to protect kids like Young and providing services to kids like Young when the schools inevitably fail is particularly fucking hilarious.

These aren't "gay kids" for me, in case you didn't know. They're my family, my cousin, my partners, myself and my fucking community. And they're dying regardless of whether or not we stand up to the kind of bullshit people in this thread are pushing. How many kids have you helped bury because of administrations like this one? How many have you helped learn to accept who they are and live in safety?

I'm not particularly sure how any of that is relevant to the bad advice you suggested for the sake of fighting your war.

If you're not willing to consider advice that might mitigate harm to gay people because they "shouldn't have to" follow it in an ideal situation, then you're essentially more concerned with putting them up as cannon fodder for your cause instead of with their actual security. Which, is cool if that's a sacrifice they want to undertake, but I'd imagine many of these people just want to get through a given phase in life with minimal harm to them.

I'm going to direct you to the post that Nordic Einar just posted, because Nordic summed it up quite nicely. I tried to lay low and got pummeled anyway. Here's the deal: it doesn't fucking matter if you're gay, trans*, or whatever. If they choose to see you that way, they WILL see you that way, regardless of whether you are gay, trans* or whatever. This is why anti-bullying laws are being put into place, not anti-bullying-LGBT-kids laws. Everyone suffers from bullying. Not just queers. Not just blacks. Not just women. Anyone perceived as a minority suffers, whether or not they actually have qualities relating to the stereotype of that minority.

I'm somehow having a hard time believing that your situation wouldn't have been worse had you chosen to be particularly flamboyant in your behavior, particularly visible among others, standing out, etc.

Perhaps I'm wrong on this -- but even if I am, I can't really say advice telling you not to be such things as being unreasonable, even if misguided.

Are you yourself gay and have tried acting more masculine even though people already know you're gay? Did this work for you in that case? Because I find that heterosexuals presuming to tell gay people what actually will make things better gets tiresome. Because it doesn't fucking work.

Once you're an identified cocksucker in highschool, there's not enough testosterone-fueled display that will unmark you as an outcast. Not being part of a sports team (that will do anything to run you out of it), not besting any sort of manly challenge. The fact that you don't like woman disqualifies of respect among male peers and labels you universally weak in most parts of the country, let alone the world. And I'm pretty sure the other gay people in this thread will echo the same while you keep making assumptions about what's reasonable and under what conditions we can operate under while you'll NEVER be capable to even grasp what those conditions have actually meant for people like us.

You'll never know the closet gay people know, so how in hell can you get off suggesting it when you don't understand the level of psychological torture and deprivation it carries; the paranoia and constant self-awareness: watch the pronouns, make sure you have zero friends or acquaintances close enough to notice you don't have any girlfriends or have pursued openly to your social circles any romantic relationships, the ability to fake some form of sexual interest and share in the socialization rituals of heterosexuals. Staying in the closet isn't close to "laying low".

[yoni45]

I can tell you have no idea what you're talking about because you link gay youth suicide with bullying, but are apparently unaware that being in the closet raises the risk factor significantly for suicide and the single largest protective factor against LGBT suicide is family acceptance UPON coming out. Gay youth suicide is linked to bullying, but it's also linked to homelessness, non-school related violence, family rejection, discrimination, and being in the closet.

Before we go on, I'm actually rather curious about that statistic -- if only regarding how one would even reach it. Mind if I grab a link? What are those stats for coming out of the closet limitedly, say, among your family?

I don't think you actually understand what you're suggesting or why people are disagreeing with it. For one, when your solution is "stop acting gay", then that's where your solution is going to stop. After the person has stopped acting like themselves, if it has any success (and it very easily could have zero success) the people in charge of preventing bullying are going to see that the bullying is gone and decide to not do anything further. In this scenario, not only have the bullies won...

This, right there, is what I have an issue with: your reasoning as to how the student should act is based not on that student's direct security needs, but on the more general affects upon the system. You're more concerned with the idea that "the bullies won" than with the success of increasing security for that student.

[Bassoon]

This, right there, is what I have an issue with: your reasoning as to how the student should act is based not on that student's direct security needs, but on the more general affects upon the system. You're more concerned with the idea that "the bullies won" than with the success of increasing security for that student.

Zie made perfectly clear what the effects upon the student were: absolutely none. In fact, it might make the situation worse, by showing the bullies that they have power over the victim, which could push them to act further, rather than appease them.

Also, what Lucrece said.

[Ghostbear]

This, right there, is what I have an issue with: your reasoning as to how the student should act is based not on that student's direct security needs, but on the more general affects upon the system. You're more concerned with the idea that "the bullies won" than with the success of increasing security for that student.

You seem to miss the psychological harm that will befall the student from the bullies winning; it's not an objection on "we can't have bullies winning because they're bad people" it's "we can't have bullies winning because then they're still inflicting their psychological harm on the victim". You also missed the entire rest of my post. You have one disagreement with it, what about the rest of it that wasn't dependent on that one spot in the slightest?

[BattleMoose]

Actually, says a fuckton of research on the psychological effects of being in the closet. But it's cool, I'm sure The Straight Folks in this thread know more about being gay in High School than the gays, particularly those who work with queer youth.

Incidentally, and I'm sure I'll repeat this in a second, but I'm not actually advising youth one way or another on whether or not to come out. I'm suggesting only the youth themselves can make that decision, determine if it's the right one, and they're well aware of the risks associated with coming out. What I'm saying is that once a youth has come out of the closet "Shut the fuck up faggot and go back in so you don't get beaten" is terrible goddamn fucking advice, and we should work to improve the environment that youth now exists in. Lets start by holding bullies and the people who enable them accountable. Victim blaming is never okay.

You clearly have already decided who I am and what paradigm or stereotype I fit in and it is very very very wrong. I would never suggest something like that to anyone, it is just so divorced from my reality.

I think its fairly safe to assume that a young teenager has no fucking clue what the potential consequences of coming out in highschool are. Its also not something that one can undo later. Suicide is also very bad for ones mental and physical well being and when gay teen suicides are brought within the national average it might be an indicator that their level of bullying is no longer horrifically disproportionate.

I think it's fairly safe to assume that you have no fucking idea what you're talking about. As a gay man who was once a gay teenager, as someone who works a great deal with queer youth, and as someone who ends up supporting the youth in question regardless of the decision they make, I am telling you gay teens are well fucking aware of the consequences of coming out. This includes both coming out in school, coming out to their parents, or coming out to close friends. Trust me, we fucking know what we risk.

I can tell you have no idea what you're talking about because you link gay youth suicide with bullying, but are apparently unaware that being in the closet raises the risk factor significantly for suicide and the single largest protective factor against LGBT suicide is family acceptance UPON coming out. Gay youth suicide is linked to bullying, but it's also linked to homelessness, non-school related violence, family rejection, discrimination, and being in the closet.

You clearly have a lot more experience dealing with troubled teens than I have. I just have my own personal experiences to go on and the few from friends that I have known. For me personally, coming out in my highschool would have been a huge mistake. I am sure of this. I passed through unnoticed and I am grateful for that. People are certainly different and different approaches for different people is fine. And certainly I agree that anyone gay teen should be supported whatever decision is made in regarding to coming out.

And my truth is that my closet was incredibly safe, incredibly warm and safe.

[yoni45]

You seem to miss the psychological harm that will befall the student from the bullies winning; it's not an objection on "we can't have bullies winning because they're bad people" it's "we can't have bullies winning because then they're still inflicting their psychological harm on the victim". You also missed the entire rest of my post. You have one disagreement with it, what about the rest of it that wasn't dependent on that one spot in the slightest?

I feel like it was dependent -- although I might agree with it. Either way, I feel like it all boils down to that one point: what are your priorities here.

I mean, are the bullies somehow inflicting less psychological harm on the victim when they're beating and degrading them more often?

Are you yourself gay and have tried acting more masculine even though people already know you're gay? Did this work for you in that case? Because I find that heterosexuals presuming to tell gay people what actually will make things better gets tiresome. Because it doesn't fucking work.

Unless these bullies are particularly ninja and entirely fixated on following this kid around and harassing him as much as possible, I'm having a hard time imagining why avoiding the bullies, staying near staff or public areas when possible, and just laying low wouldn't at least mitigate the damage.

Do you have any data on showing that gay-bashing-bullies are somehow completely impervious to avoidance?

[The Great Hippo]

This, right there, is what I have an issue with: your reasoning as to how the student should act is based not on that student's direct security needs, but on the more general affects upon the system. You're more concerned with the idea that "the bullies won" than with the success of increasing security for that student.

yoni45, I just want you to stop a moment and consider: What do you think students who are getting bullied and beaten over homosexuality are doing? Do you think the normal response is to make their homosexuality (perceived or actual) more apparent? Do you really think we need administrators to tell students to keep doing precisely what they are already doing--keep their heads down until the beatings stop?

I understand that you're concerned more about security than 'doing what's right', and I appreciate that you're setting your sights on the bodies and minds of students over the righteousness of some cause. But I'm asking you to try and step back and think about what you're saying: Hiding homosexuality has been our response for the better part of a century. It hasn't worked. It doesn't help the student.

Maybe there's some rare occasion where it does work, and the student's quality of life is improved. Well, okay. That's great, and no one's going to tell the student they're wrong, or they need to be open about it--not if they don't want to be. But the thing is, we don't need to tell the students 'have you tried hiding in a closet'--because that's what they're doing right now. The ones who it works for? They already get it. The ones who it doesn't? They need our help and support.

[Lucrece]

Are you yourself gay and have tried acting more masculine even though people already know you're gay? Did this work for you in that case? Because I find that heterosexuals presuming to tell gay people what actually will make things better gets tiresome. Because it doesn't fucking work.

Unless these bullies are particularly ninja and entirely fixated on following this kid around and harassing him as much as possible, I'm having a hard time imagining why avoiding the bullies, staying near staff or public areas when possible, and just laying low wouldn't at least mitigate the damage.

Do you have any data on showing that gay-bashing-bullies are somehow completely impervious to avoidance?

Do you have any data to support the bolded? In the meantime I'll be more inclined to give credence to my experience as a gay person in a Florida high school than your assumptions about how those who target gay people for bullying operate while not having been a gay kid in high school and a marginalized one yourself.

There's no difference in changing his mannerisms and apparel while sticking close to staff and public areas (and if you think public areas in a high school make you any safer from the bullies when you're already unpopular, I don't know what to tell you; when I was in high school and in a public area with about 60 other kids in my vicinity, it didn't stop one of the bullies from propelling an unopened can of soda into the back of my head and giving me a bloody gash that nobody helped as a witness for when administrators got involved). Yet somehow changing apparel while still having his natural lisp and feminine voice will make him lay low any better, as if he hadn't been identified already and was the fucking black kid in an Indianapolis high school.

[Ghostbear]

I feel like it was dependent -- although I might agree with it.

How is:

Spoiler:

For another, you also assume that your solution will be successful. The bullies were already harassing this kid daily -- they aren't going to care if he suddenly changes his clothes to be more "normal". They'll could just as easily see blood in the water: if they can make him change his expressions of himself with their present level of harassment, then they'll think they could do even more with more harassment.

Dependent on the point of the bullies winning? They were separate points. I even put them into different paragraphs. There are two other, also completely separate, points. Great, you don't like one of the points, but you've managed to ignore points on the structural flaws of your argument. The Greet Hippo just made a similar point.

I mean, are the bullies somehow inflicting less psychological harm on the victim when they're beating and degrading them more often?

Some of my points (see above) were about how we can't really expect that your solution will result in less beatings or less harassment.

[The Great Hippo]

Also I just want to say:

Unless these bullies are particularly ninja and entirely fixated on following this kid around and harassing him as much as possible, I'm having a hard time imagining why avoiding the bullies, staying near staff or public areas when possible, and just laying low wouldn't at least mitigate the damage.

Man, I was bullied my entire public school career, and let me tell you: Bullies are fantastic at this kind of stuff.

And really, it doesn't take a lot of bullying to reduce your sense of self-worth to mush. I mean, if you're dreading every moment outside of class--outside of the view of an administrator--outside of the view of staff--you're already in a pretty shitty situation. Just the possibility of bullying is enough to ruin your day. Now imagine every day is a ruined day, and you start to get the picture.

I don't mean to sound condescending, but I think you are gravely underestimating the psychological impact of being bullied, and how hard it is for someone to just deal with it by keeping their head down.

[Telchar]

That is not what they were doing, because telling kids to stay closeted is a horrible thing to do. If the kid had a support network outside of school strong enough to support him being in the closet at school, then maybe, but that's very poor advice to give to someone who may be feeling shame or resentment towards their homosexuality.

They were advising that girls clothing is a bad idea. They were admitting that if the student wears clothes that makes them stand out, he'll continue to get targeted. That seems entirely reasonable.

Because clearly, if they know he's gay but he doesn't wear "weird" clothes then they will accept him and stop bullying him....or not.


Mostly not.

[yoni45]

Do you have any data to support the bolded? In the meantime I'll be more inclined to give credence to my experience as a gay person in a Florida high school than your assumptions about how those who target gay people for bullying operate while not having been a gay kid in high school and a marginalized one yourself.

You need a citation on something like "a student is less likely to get beaten if they're within the direct vicinity of a teacher"? I think I'll stick to replying to other posters for now.

yoni45, I just want you to stop a moment and consider: What do you think students who are getting bullied and beaten over homosexuality are doing? Do you think the normal response is to make their homosexuality more apparent? Do you really think we need administrators to tell students to keep doing precisely what they are already doing--keep their heads down until the beatings stop?

I understand that you're concerned more about security than 'doing what's right', and I appreciate that you're setting your sights on the bodies and minds of students over the righteousness of some cause. But I'm asking you to try and step back and think about what you're saying: Hiding homosexuality has been our response for the better part of a century. It hasn't worked. It doesn't help the student.

Maybe there's some rare occasion where it does work, and the student's quality of life is improved. Well, okay. That's great, and no one's going to tell the student they're wrong, or they need to be open about it--not if they don't want to be. But the thing is, we don't need to tell the students 'have you tried hiding in a closet'--because that's what they're doing right now. The ones who it works for? They already get it. The ones who it doesn't? They need our help and support.

I'm sure it has worked to a large degree. That's not to say that it solved the problem -- far from it -- but I'm sure it mitigated the damage.

Besides the point though, neither I nor Dream said that we need to shove these kids back in the closet and be done with it. Do whatever you can wherever you can -- sue the school, sue the administration, run protests, dump some details in 4chan, whatever.

The point was simply that laying low might be a good idea -- and specifically in this case -- so would not escalating the situation even further from where it is now by raising the stakes in terms of weaponry.

[gmalivuk]

You need a citation on something like "a student is less likely to get beaten if they're within the direct vicinity of a teacher"?

No, we need a citation for your claim that things are better overall for a student who needs to stay close to teachers at all times in order to be safe from physical assault.

[yoni45]

Dependent on the point of the bullies winning? They were separate points. I even put them into different paragraphs. There are two other, also completely separate, points. Great, you don't like one of the points, but you've managed to ignore points on the structural flaws of your argument. The Greet Hippo just made a similar point.

You're right -- that wasn't dependent, but I'm going to bother arguing what "really" works and what doesn't. I doubt there's much data going in either direction, so yeah -- I'm playing by "common sense" of things like "the less risk you expose yourself to, the less likely you are to get hurt".

My point though is that there's nothing offensive (or "VICTIM BLAMER!!!!11" worthy) about advising people to lay low in such a situation. Even if laying low wouldn't produce the relevant results.

You need a citation on something like "a student is less likely to get beaten if they're within the direct vicinity of a teacher"?

No, we need a citation for your claim that things are better overall for a student who needs to stay close to teachers at all times in order to be safe from physical assault.

Wrong conversation, I think you were looking for the "are bullied kids better off than the ones that aren't bullied" thread.

[The Great Hippo]

I'm sure it has worked to a large degree. That's not to say that it solved the problem -- far from it -- but I'm sure it mitigated the damage.

Well, yeah--I mean, obviously. People wouldn't hide who they are if it didn't work, to some degree.

Besides the point though, neither I nor Dream said that we need to shove these kids back in the closet and be done with it. Do whatever you can wherever you can -- sue the school, sue the administration, run protests, dump some details in 4chan, whatever.

Obviously you didn't say the 'be done with it' part--but isn't what you're saying at least implying 'back into the closet until we figure out a better way to address this'?

Frankly, I think escalation is good, so long as the type of escalation is controlled and responsible and the student wants us to escalate. If a student wants to wear feminine clothes, okay--make sure they understand that 1) this increases the likelihood of bullying, and 2) that first point won't change your lack of tolerance for bullying. We can simultaneously make sure the students know what they're getting into while also making sure they know we've got their backs. And if point 1) is reason enough for them to not wear feminine clothing, or to not behave the way they want to--that's fine too.

People should do the things they're comfortable doing, and we should do everything in our power to protect them. We shouldn't tell them they shouldn't do those things, just make clear what the consequences of doing those things could be (and what steps we will take to address those consequences).

[Lucrece]

He doesn't like when people turn on him the habit of asking a citation for common sense/"everybody should know this" answers, though he should be free to be the only one allowed to pass off statements as common knowledge everyone else should understand. Notice how he says he doesn't understand how bullies can be impervious to avoidance, and that standing by administrators and public areas would mitigate damage (and it didn't, as the articles linked and video interview I provided showed, because administrators weren't empathetic toward Dynasty and he'd already gotten assaulted in public venues like school hallways where other students and teachers gather).

I mean, if I can't understand an experience I haven't gone through, obviously what others who have are saying must be bullshit and in need of verification by data.

[The Great Hippo]

Look, this is all about making sure bullied students are capable of navigating the landscape of public schools with both their sense of identity and their sense of well being intact. We have a lot to balance here--we have to let them be who they want to be, but we also have to create an environment where being what they want to be doesn't carry terrible consequences.

Telling students how they should express their identities interferes with letting them be who they want to be; not protecting those expressions interferes with creating a safe, fertile environment. What needs to be done here is this: Encourage students to express themselves but make clear to them what the consequences of those expressions are. In the next breath, make just as clear to them what you can do to help protect and support them.

The point here is that students should be making these decisions--whether or not to 'hide in the closet' or to be out and open about it. They're here to learn who they are; here's their first opportunity. We owe it to them to protect them and protect their decision about themselves.

[yoni45]

Obviously you didn't say the 'be done with it' part--but isn't what you're saying at least implying 'back into the closet until we figure out a better way to address this'?

Depending on the specific circumstances, I may be -- more specifically below.

Frankly, I think escalation is good, so long as the type of escalation is controlled and responsible and the student wants us to escalate. If a student wants to wear feminine clothes, okay--make sure they understand that 1) this increases the likelihood of bullying, and 2) that first point won't change your lack of tolerance for bullying. We can simultaneously make sure the students know what they're getting into while also making sure they know we've got their backs. And if point 1) is reason enough for them to not wear feminine clothing, or to not behave the way they want to--that's fine too.

That's fair -- but I feel like controlled is important here in the sense that it won't escalate to kids getting stabbed. And if there's a real chance of that, then maybe you should save that escalation for another day.

Specifically in this scenario, bringing in a stun gun is exactly the kind of escalation that could easily spiral out of control and end up with the kid in the hospital. Frankly, it's fortunate the kid wasn't put in the hospital right then and there given that he was severely outnumbered.

[Lucrece]

Look, this is all about making sure bullied students are capable of navigating the landscape of public schools with both their sense of identity and their sense of well being intact. We have a lot to balance here--we have to let them be who they want to be, but we also have to create an environment where being what they want to be doesn't carry terrible consequences.

Telling students how they should express their identities interferes with letting them be who they want to be; not protecting those expressions interferes with creating a safe, fertile environment. What needs to be done here is this: Encourage students to express themselves but make clear to them what the consequences of those expressions are. In the next breath, make just as clear to them what you can do to help protect and support them.

The point here is that students should be making these decisions--whether or not to 'hide in the closet' or to be out and open about it. They're here to learn who they are; here's their first opportunity. We owe it to them to protect them and protect their decision about themselves.

Sure, but in this case Dynasty was already beyond that conversation. It's not like a high school kid with that amount of effeminate mannerism went through elementary and middle school oblivious to the consequences of his behavior and having to balance his self-expression with the increasing threats of being a gender-atypical individual. Nobody's arguing that Dynasty should go one way or another because in the video interview I provided Dynasty already made that choice -- I shouldn't have to change who I am in order to not get beat up and marginalized.

So, what happens to this kid when administrators don't like his answer and choose to allow others to punish him for it while they wave their hands at how utterly impossible it is for them to intervene? What would be their movement if the bullying that attracted attention had been a less popular form of bullying like racism or religious bullying? I bet you they would've moved their asses a lot faster, especially on the religious bullying angle. Instead of telling the kid to "hide your cross or remove the hijab or hide the yarmulke". People would be outraged that an administrator told the Jewish kid to hide his yarmulke or the Christian to remove his cross on a chain.

[The Great Hippo]

That's fair -- but I feel like controlled is important here in the sense that it won't escalate to kids getting stabbed. And if there's a real chance of that, then maybe you should save that escalation for another day.

In this case, 'controlled' means school-sponsored and nonviolent. Why can't we pull the bullies' parents in? Talk to them, get them to talk to their kids? If that doesn't work, level some serious threats the bullies' way? Why not form a teacher-sponsored (but student-run) anti-bullying club, relying on positive popular kids to level their pull against bullies? If a kid wants to wear feminine clothes, and lots of kids are going to bully him, why not round up some of the kids who think that's nonsense (I'm sure not everyone is against it) and convince them to all wear feminine clothes too? Bring supportive parents in on the notion.

The point here is, when a kid makes it clear they want to go forward--they want to express themselves--you back them up. You make noise. You don't tell the kid 'shhh, be quiet'--you bring out the cymbals and you start hammering as loud as you can. That's what support means; instead of sweeping it under the rug, you pull it out into the sunshine.

I think that if the administration had responded to this by making noise and throwing weight behind the kid in question, things would have played out much differently. Don't you?

EDIT:

So, what happens to this kid when administrators don't like his answer and choose to allow others to punish him for it while they wave their hands at how utterly impossible it is for them to intervene? What would be their movement if the bullying that attracted attention had been a less popular form of bullying like racism or religious bullying? I bet you they would've moved their asses a lot faster, especially on the religious bullying angle. Instead of telling the kid to "hide your cross or remove the hijab or hide the yarmulke". People would be outraged that an administrator told the Jewish kid to hide his yarmulke or the Christian to remove his cross on a chain.

Absolutely--and I'd be saying the same things in that case: Make noise, throw your weight around, support the student's decision to express themselves.

Schools are where kids make decisions about who they are. Protecting those decisions--supporting those decisions--making sure those are informed decisions--those are things we absolutely must do. If we only encourage certain types of decisions, and discourage decisions that are unpopular or may lead to bullying--we're creating an environment that only supports the people we feel comfortable supporting. And every single one of these kids is worth supporting¹.


DOUBLE-EDIT: Also want to take a moment to mention this:

And my truth is that my closet was incredibly safe, incredibly warm and safe.

That is totally a fine thing, and anyone who would say or imply otherwise can piss off. Expressing yourself--whether by choosing to stay in the closet or to come out of the closet--should always be a personal decision. It's terrible that we live in a culture where people need to make decisions like that, but we can't deny that reality, and we should support that decision.

There are people who don't want to do that, though, and they deserve just as much support. Whether you're being open about it or not--both decisions are yours, and both should be respected and supported.


¹ Except when it comes to identifying with bullying! I guess I am prejudice against bullies, oh crap.

[Qaanol]

I resent your implication that my username color has any direct effect on how right I am.

Quoted for beauty.