SOGI Minority and School Life in Asian Contexts [First Edition] 9781000955927, 9781032553108, 9781032553849, 9781003430414

Table of contents :
Cover
Half Title
Title Page
Copyright Page
Table of Contents
List of Illustrations
Figure
Tables
List of Contributors
Foreword
List of Abbreviations
Chapter 1: Introduction: SOGI Minorities
SOGI Minorities and LGBTQ
History of SOGI Minorities
Research on SOGI Minorities
SOGI Minority Youth
Research of School and SOGI Minorities
SOGI Minorities in Asian Contexts
An Overview of the Following Chapters
References
Chapter 2: Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and School Life in Japan
Introduction
Minorities in Japanese Society
Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Japanese Society
Historical Background
Sexual Orientation: Current Social Situation
Gender Identity: Current Social Situation
LGBTQ+ Advocacy
Various Issues in Japanese Schools
SOGI and School Life in Japan
Historical Background on School Settings
Sexual Orientation: Current School Settings
Gender Identity: Current School Settings
Teachers’ Knowledge of and Response to SOGI Issues in Schools
LGBTQ+ in School Settings: Hope for the Future
Research on SOGI and School Life in Japan
Self-Esteem
Identity Development
Research on the Whole Student (Classroom and School)
Emerging Practices in Japanese Schools
Primary Prevention: Educating Teachers
Primary Prevention: Good Practices in School Settings
Secondary and Tertiary Prevention: Practices of Psychological Support
Activities in the Community
Further Challenges
References
Chapter 3: Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and School Life in Mainland China
Introduction
Minorities in Mainland Chinese Society
Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Mainland Chinese Society
Historical Background
Sexual Orientation: Current Social Situation
Gender Identity: Current Social Situation
LGBTQ+ Advocacy
Various Issues in Mainland Chinese Schools
SOGI and School Life in Mainland China
Historical Background on School Settings
Sexual Orientation: Current School Settings
Gender Identity: Current School Settings
Teachers' Knowledge of and Response to SOGI Issues in Schools
LGBTQ+ in School Settings: Hope for the Future
Research on SOGI and School Life in Mainland China
Self-Identity and Coming-Out Experiences
Received Parenting Style and Family Support
Research on the Whole Student (Classroom and School)
Current Practices in Mainland Chinese Schools
Encouraging Involvement of Teachers: Training and Attitudes
Joint Participation: Students and Families
Lack of Psychological Support
Activities in the Community
Future Challenges
References
Chapter 4: Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and School Life in South Korea
Introduction
SOGI Minority and South Korean Society
Historical Background
Sexual Orientation: Current Social Situation
Gender Identity: Current Social Situation
SOGI Minority Community Development and Advocacy
Various Issues in Schools in South Korea
Lack of School Counselors
Various Issues in School Counseling
SOGI and School Life in South Korea
Historical Background on School Settings
Experiences of SOGI Minority Students
Peer’s Aggression
Teachers and Staff Members’ Aggression
Systemic Aggression
Microaggression and Awareness of SOGI Issues
Gender Segregation in Schools
Current Practices in South Korean Schools
SOGI Minority in School Settings: Hope for the Future
References
Chapter 5: Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and School life in Taiwan
Introduction
Minorities in Taiwanese Society
SOGI in Taiwanese Society
History and Growth of SOGI Minority Rights in Taiwan
Current Limitations and Future Directions
Various Issues in Taiwan Schools
Various Influences: Chinese Cultural Values Operating Relationships
Various Influences: Foreign Cultures
Various Influences: Religious Factors
Tragic History Pushed the Progress of Gender Equity in Taiwan
The Legal Foundation of Gender Equity: GEEA
SOGI Minorities and School Life in Taiwan
Campus Climate Survey
Harassment and Bullying in Schools
Transgender in Schools
Practices in Taiwanese Schools
Teachers' Training and Teaching Resources in SOGI Issues
Difficulties Delivering SOGI Materials in Schools
School Counselors' Training in SOGI Issues
School Counselors as Allies in Schools
Suggestions for Future Directions
References
Chapter 6: Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and School Life in Hong Kong:
Introduction
Minorities and Cultural Context in Hong Kong Society
Hong Kong: Western and Chinese Traditions
Cultural Forces in Hong Kong
Expression of SOGI in Hong Kong
Cultural Identities/Languages
Sexual Prejudice and Transprejudice: SOGI in Hong Kong
Sexual Prejudice and Sexual Minority (LGBQ) Communities
Transprejudice and Transgender Communities
School Life in Hong Kong: Various Issues
School Life in Hong Kong: SOGI Minority
Sexual Orientation Identities and School Life
Gender Identities and School Life
Practices in Hong Kong Schools
Sexual and Transprejudice among Educators
Curriculum Omission
Community Project Fills the Educational Gap
Recommendations
Enactment of Antidiscrimination Ordinance
Anti-Harassment School Campaigns
Professional Training
Curriculum Review on Sexuality Education
Conclusion
References
Chapter 7: SOGIE, Bullying, and Cyberbullying in Thai Schools
Introduction
Minorities in Thai Society
SOGIE in Thai Society
Historical Background
Legislation, Attitudes, and Discrimination
Various Issues in Thai Schools
Increased Access but with Quality and Equity Problems
Violence, Bullying, and Cyberbullying
SOGIE and School Life in Thailand
SOGIE-Based Bullying
Stigmatizing Sexuality Education
Gendered Uniform, Hairstyle, and Toilet Regulations
Anti-Bullying Initiatives
Conclusion
References
Chapter 8: Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and School Life in Malaysia
Introduction
Malaysia as a Multicultural Society
SOGI in Malaysian Society
Historical Background
Legal Background
Religious Background
Sexual Orientation: Current Social Situation
Gender Identity: Current Social Situation
SOGI Human Rights Advocacy
Various Issues in Malaysian Schools
SOGI and School Life in Malaysia
Historical Background on School Settings
SOGI: Current School Settings
Intersectionality
Teachers’ Knowledge of and Response to SOGI Issues in Schools
SOGI Minorities in School Settings: Hope for the Future
Research on SOGI and School Life in Malaysia
Interventions from Both Sides
Governmental and/or Religious Agencies
Pro-SOGI NGOs and Allies
Further Challenges
References
Chapter 9: Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and School Life in India
Introduction
Minorities in Indian Society
SOGI and Indian Culture
Section 377 and the Naz Foundation Judgment
The NALSA Judgment
Various Issues in Indian Schools
SOGI and School Life in India
Census of India (2011)
The Tamil Nadu Model of Education
National Human Rights Commission Report, 2018
Current Practices in Indian Schools
Current Policies and Their Implications
Challenges in the Current Policy
A Way Forward
References
Chapter 10: Intersectionality and Multiple Minority Experiences: Perspectives from the United States
Introduction
Discrimination, Minority Stress, and Intersectionality
Historical Contexts and Asian American Ethnic Diversity
The Model Minority Myth
Asian American Intersectional Minority Stress
School Safety and Belonging
Bias-Based Bullying Experiences of Asian American Youth: An Empirical Example
Conclusion
References
Chapter 11: Inter-minority Conflict in Japanese Context
Introduction
Background and Objectives
Minority Groups
IMCs in Japan
IMC between Gender (Women) and PwD
IMC between Gender (Women) and SOGI Minorities
IMC between Gender (Women) and Religion (Judaists, Christians, or Muslims)
IMC between SOGI Minorities and Religion (Judaists, Christians, or Muslims): Homophobia Based on Religious Beliefs
Discussions
Acknowledgment
References
Chapter 12: Inter-minority Empathy
Introduction
Minorities Reconsidered
Minority and Minority
Prerequisite Study of Inter-minority Empathy
Inter-minority Empathy
Enhancing Inter-minority Empathy
Conclusion: Composition of Minority vs. Majority; the Way Ahead
References
Index

Citation preview

SOGI MINORITY AND SCHOOL LIFE IN ASIAN CONTEXTS

Representing an often overlooked population, this book explores the experiences of LGBTQ+ youth in Asian countries. Contributors focus on LGBTQ+ youth’s school life experiences, including bullying and violence, a pervasive and serious problem. This book aims to inform psychologists, mental health providers, and school professionals about the needs of LGBTQ+ youth from eight different Asian countries. Individual chapters present unique aspects of LGBTQ+ youth experiences in school contexts from different cultural perspectives. In addition, the intersectionality of LGBTQ+ and other minorities (including ethnicity, religion, and social class) highlights multiple sources of oppression or discrimination that can create additional pressures and stress for youth. The concepts of interminority conflict and inter-minority empathy are introduced to understand minority issues from new perspectives. This is a valuable reference for psychologists, social workers, counselors, nurses, mental health professionals, and students, whether preparing for general practice, treating LGBTQ+ clients, or supporting LGBTQ+ youth in schools around the world. Makiko Kasai (she/her) works at the Naruto University of Education in Tokushima, Japan as a Professor and the Director of the Student Guidance and Support Center. She graduated from the University of Missouri-Columbia with a Ph.D. Her research interests include counseling and clinical psychology with psychoanalytic self psychology orientation and practice of sexual and gender minorities, cyberbullying, sexuality education, and LGBTQ+-friendly counselor training. She serves as the executive director of the Japanese Society of Clinical Psychology and as a national delegate to the Japanese Society of Clinical Psychologists. Yuichi Toda is Professor at Osaka Kyoiku University (Osaka University of Education). He received his B.A. and M.A. at the University of Tokyo, and then he studied a doctoral course at the University of Tokyo. He was a visiting fellow at Goldsmiths College, University of London from March 1998 to January 1999 and for a short time Visiting Professor at the University of Vienna

during the summer from 2007 to 2010. He has written several English language articles on bullying/ijime. His research with Dr. Dagmar Strohmeier has received den Hauptpreis des Bank Austria Preises zur Förderung innovativer Forschungsprojekte 2008. Stephen Russell (he/him) is Priscilla Pond Flawn Regents Professor in Child Development, Chair of the Department of Human Development and Family Sciences, and Amy Johnson McLaughlin Director of the School of Human Ecology at the University of Texas at Austin. He is an expert in adolescent and young adult health, with a focus on sexual orientation and gender identity. He has served on the governing boards of the Society for Research in Child Development, National Council on Family Relations (and is an elected Fellow), the Council on Contemporary Families, SIECUS: Sex Ed for Social Change, and the Society for Research on Adolescence (he served as President 2012–2014).

SOGI Minority and School Life in Asian Contexts Beyond Bullying and Conflict Toward Inter-Minority Empathy Edited by Makiko Kasai, Yuichi Toda, and Stephen Russell

First published 2024 by Routledge 4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2024 selection and editorial matter, Makiko Kasai, Yuichi Toda and Stephen Russell; individual chapters, the contributors The right of Makiko Kasai, Yuichi Toda and Stephen Russell to be identified as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN: 978-1-032-55310-8 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-032-55384-9 (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-003-43041-4 (ebk) DOI: 10.4324/9781003430414 Typeset in Times New Roman by SPi Technologies India Pvt Ltd (Straive)

Contents

List of Illustrations vii List of Contributors viii Foreword x List of Abbreviations xii 1 Introduction: SOGI Minorities

1

MAKIKO KASAI, STEPHEN RUSSELL, AND YUICHI TODA

2 Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and School Life in Japan

18

MAKIKO KASAI AND YUICHI TODA

3 Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and School Life in Mainland China

36

SHUO “COCO” WANG

4 Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and School Life in South Korea

64

EUNHUI YOON AND SUNGWON YOON-LEE

5 Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and School life in Taiwan 85 HUNG CHIAO AND TE-SHENG CHANG

6 Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and School Life in Hong Kong

101

DIANA K. KWOK

7 SOGIE, Bullying, and Cyberbullying in Thai Schools TIMO T. OJANEN AND RUTHAYCHONNEE SITTICHAI

119

vi Contents

8 Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and School Life in Malaysia

135

CHIAOTHONG YONG

9 Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and School Life in India

156

TUSHAR SINGH, HARLEEN KAUR, AND SHALINI MITTAL

10 Intersectionality and Multiple Minority Experiences: Perspectives from the United States

171

STEPHEN RUSSELL AND AMY L. MCCURDY

11 Inter-minority Conflict in Japanese Context

186

MASANORI SHIRAISHI AND YUICHI TODA

12 Inter-minority Empathy

198

MAKIKO KASAI

Index 209

Illustrations

Figure 1.1 2011 United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) Resolution Vote on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity

4

Tables 1.1 Sexual and Gender Minorities in Eight Asian Contexts 10.1 Demographic Statistics Stratified by Ethnic Subgroups 11.1 Major Human Rights Issues from The Protection of Human Rights, 2021, Human Rights Bureau, Ministry of Justice, Japan 11.2 Minority Groups and Definitions in This Chapter 11.3 IMC in Japanese Context

9 180 188 189 191

Contributors

Te-Sheng Chang is a Professor at in the Department of Educational and Human Potentials Development at National Dong-Hwa University, Taiwan. He has a wide range of research interests, including teaching and learning innovation, educational psychology, teacher professional development, multicultural education, gender studies, and LGBT studies. Hung Chiao is a Taiwanese feminist, counseling psychology scientist, and supervisor, whose primary career role is as a faculty member in the Psychology and Counseling Department at National Taipei University of Education. She continues to dedicate herself to learning from local clinical experiences and Western counseling psychology in sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) and supervision areas. Harleen Kaur is a Doctoral candidate and Indian Council of Social Science Research (ICSSR) Junior Research Fellow in the Department of Psychology at Banaras Hindu University. Her area of interest is social justice, gender, health and cognitive psychology. She is also a former intern at the National Institute of Social Defense, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment Government of India. She has bagged prestigious endowment scholarships and numerous academic and research awards. She has several high-impact factor publications in various esteemed international journals. She believes her researches should benefit society at large. Diana K. Kwok is an Associate Professor in the Department of Special Education and Counselling at the Education University of Hong Kong. She is currently teaching and researching sexuality education. Her research interests include sexual/transgender prejudice and sexuality education for sexually and gender-expansive (LGBTQIA+) students. Amy L. McCurdy is a Postdoctoral Scholar at the University of Texas. She researches the impact of parenting experiences on adolescent mental health, focusing on LGBTQ+ youth. Dr. McCurdy has publications in the Journal of Family Theory & Review, Child Abuse & Neglect, and Child Development. Shalini Mittal completed her Ph.D. in psychology at Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, India. She is currently working as an Assistant Professor at

Contributors  ix Bennett University, Greater Noida, India. She aims to amplify the voices and impact of victims and gender minorities through her research work. Timo T. Ojanen works at the Faculty of Learning Sciences and Education at Thammasat University. His research interests include educational and health implications of gender and sexual diversity, including school bullying and cyberbullying, sexuality education, and LGBTIQ-friendly mental health services. Masanori Shiraishi currently works at Tokyo Mirai University, School of Child Psychology. Research interest: Minorities, Kyosei-studies, inter-minority conflict. Tushar Singh is an Assistant Professor of Psychology at Banaras Hindu University, UP. He specializes in the areas of forensic psychology, health, and cognition. He has a number of publications in national and international journals. He has numerous professional recognitions such as the “Emerging Psychologist” award from the International Congress of Psychology in South Africa in 2012 and the Young Researcher Award by the International Council of Psychologists in Montreal, Canada in 2018. Currently, Dr. Singh is serving as treasurer of the National Academy of Psychology (NAOP), India, and as a member of the board of directors at the International Association of Applied Psychology (IAAP). Ruthaychonnee Sittichai works at the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Prince of Songkla University. Her research interests include cyberbullying, bullying, cyber hate, poly victimization e-cigarette behavior, and behavior science mainly in adolescents. Chiaothong Yong is an Assistant Professor-Clinical at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center’s Family & Community Medicine Department and a lead psychologist at its Gender Affirming Primary Care Clinic. Currently serving as a Vice President of Diversity for the Ohio Psychological Association, she is passionate about diversity work. Eunhui Yoon is an Assistant Professor in the School Counseling and Counselor Education Program, Department of Educational Psychology and Learning Systems at Florida State University. Her research focuses on supporting traditionally marginalized populations such as females, people of color, sexual and gender-expansive individuals, and persons of international backgrounds. She serves as an editorial board member of the Journal of LGBTQ Issues in Counseling and an associate editor of the Korean Journal of Counseling. SungWon Yoon-Lee, M.A., is a Ph.D. student in Counselor Education at The Pennsylvania State University. SungWon’s interests are placed around how to contextualize SOGI mental health issues in Korea to its sociopolitical situation and educate counselors to be competent as an advocate for SOGI rights. SungWon is also a registered supervisor and Counseling Psychologist (Level 1, #1626) certified by the Korean Psychological Association. Shuo “Coco” Wang is a Ph.D. student in Counseling Psychology at New Mexico State University. Her research interests are the intersectionality of East Asian queer individuals and its impacts on their mental health in individual and family contexts.

Foreword

Schools should be a safe place for learning. In addition, they should be imparting the values of tolerance of difference, and helping others, as part of being a good citizen in later life. Unfortunately, this is often not the case for pupils whose sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) differ from normative heterosexual beliefs or practices. They often experience bullying and harassment from peers, and varying degrees of protection or, often, animosity, from families, religious leaders, politicians, the media, and wider society. A vital part of education is to confront prejudiced views and behaviors, whether about sexual orientation or gender identity, or about ethnicity, faith, gender, or disability – such as are manifested in prejudice-based or biased bullying. This book edited by Kasai, Toda, and Russell will be an invaluable asset, especially as regards the situation in many Asian contexts. After an important introductory Chapter 1, the situation in many Asian contexts – Japan, mainland China, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Thailand, Malaysia, and India – is given in Chapters 2 through 9. These regions are varied in ethnic diversity, region(s), and political history. There are thus substantial variations between countries – for example from a relatively protective environment in Taiwan to a relatively less protective environment in Malaysia. Nevertheless, many issues are in common. Peer group attitudes and behaviors will be central to individual pupil experience. But these in turn will be influenced by wider social factors. The importance of teacher knowledge about SOGI issues, and appropriate steps to take in the school context, is noted in many chapters. This may or may not be made easier by the legal situation in the country and how the issues are seen by the wider public. As noted in Chapter 10, SOGI-related prejudice and bullying are an aspect of what has been referred to more generally as prejudice-related or identity-based or bias-based bullying. Whatever form bullying takes, and whatever country it occurs in, we know from extensive research that targets of such behaviors are likely to experience anxiety, depression, feelings of loss of self-worth, and even suicidal thoughts and self-harm. This is not inevitably so; it depends on the length and severity of the bullying and the extent of support from friends or family, but for many, there are adverse effects, sometimes lasting into adult life. These are educational and health issues that should not be ignored.

Foreword  xi Proximally, researchers, educationists, and school personnel have a responsibility to work together constructively on these issues while not ignoring families and wider social factors. Chapters 11 and 12 consider these broader issues, particularly relationships between minorities. The idea that everyone is different, everyone has their own individuality, can be powerful; the final chapter ends on a positive note with the concept of inter-minority empathy. This book will be an important and valuable resource for many readers. Particularly for teachers and educators in Asian countries but more widely for families, concerned citizens, and those wishing to understand and reduce bias-based bullying and improve all pupils’ well-being, globally. Peter K. Smith Goldsmiths, University of London February 2023

Abbreviations

IMC IME LGBTQ LGBTQ+ SOGI SOGIE UNHRC

Inter-minority Conflict Inter-minority Empathy Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Questioning Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Questioning, Queer,  and So On Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression United Nations Human Rights Council

1 Introduction SOGI Minorities Makiko Kasai, Stephen Russell, and Yuichi Toda

SOGI Minorities and LGBTQ Many countries around the world have taken decisive steps in recent years to strengthen the protection of the human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people – people who are minorities based on their sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI minorities). Several new laws have been adopted, including laws prohibiting discrimination, penalizing hate crimes against LGBTQ people, and making it easier for transgender people to obtain official documents that reflect their gender identity. Training programs for police, teachers, social workers, and other personnel have also been developed, as they have anti-bullying initiatives in many schools. However, same-sex relationships are currently, at the time of this publication, still illegal in more than 70 countries around the world and punishable by death in twelve. Historically, the use of the term “homosexuality” began in the 1860s and was later popularized as psychopathology by the use of “homosexuality” as one of the psychopathologies in Sexual Psychopathology (2nd ed.; KrafftEbing, 1887). In 1892, this book was translated into English, introducing the English word “homosexuality.” Thus, the idea that homosexuality is a psychopathology and an abnormality spread throughout the world. Until recently, most psychologists and other professionals supported the view that homosexuality is a mental illness. “Gay affirmative” psychology, as this field was first known in the 1970s, developed to challenge this perspective, documenting that SOGI minority people are psychologically healthy, “normal” individuals (Ellis, Riggs, & Peel, 2019). In the 1990s, an increasing number of researchers began criticizing the conventional theory that heterosexuality alone is normal, and several studies were conducted. Gradually, same-sex desire became accepted as part of the continuum of human experience. In contrast, John Oliven (1965) introduced the term “transgender” in his 1965 reference work Sexual Hygiene and Pathology. Before that time, those who were uncomfortable with their gender had not been distinguished from homosexuality. Since the 1930s, sex reassignment surgery (SRS) for people with gender dysphoria has been performed in Europe, including Germany and the United Kingdom, and since the 1960s in the United States. The Gender DOI: 10.4324/9781003430414-1

2  Makiko Kasai et al. Identity Clinic at Johns Hopkins University played a central role in this movement (Meyer & Reter, 1979). It is important to note here that there are no universally agreed definitions of the terms “lesbian,” “gay,” “bisexual,” “trans,” “queer,” and “questioning,” and there are many other words and phrases that are used to categorize sexuality and gender identity. The terms “LGB,” “LGBT,” and occasionally “LGBTQ” or “LGBTQI+” have been used. Not only can these increasingly lengthy acronyms be confusing, but there is also considerable debate about the scope of inclusion—whether to focus on same-sex sexuality and the experiences of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people, or to include the experiences of trans people, or to incorporate queer perspectives. Although there are important differences among LGBTQ people, the shared experience of living outside dominant sexuality and sex/gender norms and the close links between sexuality and sex/gender merit an inclusive approach. Therefore, we use the terms “SOGI” (sexual orientation and gender identity) and “SOGI minorities” in this book. The difference between LGBTQ and SOGI is that LGBTQ is a term about “who” as a subject, whereas SOGI is a term about “what”—the attributes and characteristics associated with sexuality and gender. SOGI is an attribute of all people, which is why there is an imbalance when comparing LGBTQ and non-LGBTQ people, where one has rights and the other does not. Using SOGI is intended to mean, “Let’s treat everyone equally, regardless of the attribute of SOGI that they all have.” Therefore, we use the terms “SOGI” and “SOGI minorities” in this book, except when using terms that were already used in an original paper or document. History of SOGI Minorities Internationally, early United Nations’ (UN) reports on the HIV/AIDS pandemic issued in the 1980s mentioned homosexuality as a contributing factor, and the 1986 “Human Freedom Index” survey included specific questions to be determined from the record of human rights in each country related to criminal laws regulating homosexuality. In 2003, major European countries sponsored the “Brazilian Resolution” at the Committee on Human Rights of the Covenant on Civil Liberties, which considered homosexual rights (“homosexual” as the language that precedes SOGI and refers only to sexual orientation) to be fundamental to human rights. In 2006, the International Day Against Homophobia (IDAHO) was launched as an international campaign to decriminalize same-sex relationships. It is supported by many international public figures, including Nobel laureates, academics, clergy, and celebrities. Since 2008, 34 member countries of the Organization of American States have unanimously approved a series of resolutions affirming that human rights protection extends to SOGI (Amnesty International, 2008). The Statement on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity, submitted to the UN General Assembly on December 18, 2008, to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Introduction  3 (not adopted because of opposition from the Arab League), is in addition to the Montreal Declaration (2006), which includes the need for health insurance coverage for same-sex marriage and gender reassignment surgery. In the Yogyakarta Principles (2006), the “Statement on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity” stated the need to punish those who discriminated against people based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. The statement went on to include an expression of “grave concern at all acts of violence and discrimination perpetrated against individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation and gender identity in all regions of the world.” This statement includes two requests. The first request was that the UN’s Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) would commission a study and provide documentation of discriminatory laws and practices based on sexual orientation, gender identity, and acts of violence against individuals in all regions of the world and how international human rights law can be used to prevent violence and related human rights violations based on SOGI. Second, there was a request for a study to be completed in December 2011 on how international human rights law can be used to prevent human rights violations related to sexual orientation and gender identity–based violence. The vote was 23 in favor of the statement, 19 against, and some abstentions (Figure 1.1). LGBT issues have received unprecedented attention even at the intergovernmental level. In June 2011, the UNHRC adopted a draft resolution, the first UN resolution on SOGI, expressing “venerable concern” about violence and discrimination based on an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity. The adoption of the resolution prompted the OHCHR to produce the first formal UN report on the issue. This was the first time an intergovernmental body of the UN formally debated this issue. In July 2013, the OHCHR launched the UN Free & Equal, an unprecedented global UN public information campaign aimed at promoting equal rights and fair treatment of LGBTQI+ people. Support from the World Health Organization (WHO) for Member States is founded on the fundamental human rights principle that all persons should have access to health services without discrimination, including on the basis of SOGI. The adoption of the 2030 agenda for sustainable development and its pledge to “leave no one behind,” based on the normative framework of international human rights law, has reinforced the need to understand and improve the health and well-being of LGBTQI+ people, who are often left behind. Research on SOGI Minorities In the Western world, many psychological studies have been conducted on SOGI minorities since the 1960s. Havelock Ellis (1859–1939), a British doctor, is a central figure in the modern study of sexuality. Ellis’s major work was the six-volume Studies in the Psychology of Sex, published between 1897 and 1910. Ellis, along with his contemporary Freud, opened up sexuality to serious research and challenged the moral values that blocked public and scientific discussions of sexuality. In the book Sexual Inversion (1896/1897; Ellis & Symonds, 2007),

4  Makiko Kasai et al.

Figure 1.1 2011 United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) Resolution Vote on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity.

Introduction  5 he presented homosexuality as a biological anomaly akin to color blindness. This radical argument challenged the dominant view that homosexuality was the result of choice and, therefore, sinful or criminal behavior. LGBTQ psychologists have inherited a long European tradition of emancipatory scholarship and social activism (Coyle & Kitzinger, 2002). Although doctors in the United States had studied and written about variant sexuality for as long as European sexologists (see Terry et al., 1999), it was not until the 1950s and the work of Kinsey (1894–1956) and colleagues that the scientific study of sexuality was truly established in the United States. The famous Kinsey Reports (1948) detailed the findings of comprehensive sexual histories collected from over 10,000 people. Kinsey’s methods and findings have generated a significant amount of controversy (Ericksen & Steffen, 2000). In terms of his contributions to LGBTQ psychology, he challenged the notion that homosexual behavior is relatively infrequent. Kinsey found that many people have had same-sex sexual experiences, and people’s sexual preferences could change throughout their lifetime: 50% of men and 28% of women in his studies had same-sex sexual experiences. Kinsey is widely regarded as the “father” of modern sexology, and his work is often associated with the “sexual revolution” in the United States in the 1960s. Kinsey’s research had a profound impact on social and cultural values in the United States and other Western countries, and his findings challenged widely held beliefs about sexuality. SOGI Minority Youth As mentioned early, there have been many changes in the SOGI minority youth worldwide. Changes in society are evident among youth and minors worldwide. Only in recent decades have there been studies that asked adolescents to indicate their sexual or gender identities; before the 1970s, there were almost no studies on SOGI minority youth, partly because SOGI issues were invisible, and few LGBTQ people came out or disclosed their SOGI identities before adulthood. Over the last 50 years, however, it has become clear that LGBTQ people understand themselves to be LGBTQ and disclose their identities (or “come out”) to others at younger ages than prior cohorts (Russell & Fish, 2019). Whereas LGBTQ people were most likely to come out in adulthood 50 years ago, the average age of disclosure has dropped for more recent cohorts of youth. For example, one study in the United States showed that for participants in a national survey in 2016–2017, the average age of coming out to a family member was 26 years for people aged 50–60, whereas the average age was 16 years for people aged 18–26 (Bishop et al., 2020). This declining age highlights the important role of the changing visibility of LGBTQ people and the change in societal attitudes toward SOGI. This suggests that more youth now identify as LGBTQ than ever. Studies on SOGI minority youth show that they are at risk for some of the greatest difficulties experienced by adolescents (Russell & Fish, 2016). Much of this risk has been traced to stigma and discrimination in their lives, and much

6  Makiko Kasai et al. of this stigma and discrimination has been traced directly to experiences at school (Russell & Horn, 2017). Recently, significant attention has been paid to the victimization and bullying of SOGI minority students in schools (UNESCO, 2012), and several reports from Europe have examined issues of the well-being of SOGI youth at school, including policies and practices that may mitigate the effects of SOGI victimization and bullying for youth (Magić & Selun, 2018). Bullying due to actual or perceived SOGI has been linked not only to academic problems but also to compromised mental health and highrisk health behaviors (Moyano & del Mar Sanchez-Fuentes, 2020). Global culture is largely heteronormative, and schools are microcosms that represent and replicate these cultural norms (Russell & Horn, 2017). Thus, homophobic victimization and bullying can be understood in the context of silence regarding sexuality and gender in schools. The culture of silence about sexual and gender diversity often makes schools inhospitable and unsafe for students who do not conform to the norms of heterosexuality and typical gender expression. At the same time, there have been dramatic social changes in recent decades with respect to societal understanding of SOGI and LGBT rights around the world, as outlined in the previous sections. Despite this social change, SOGI nondiscrimination and rights remain limited for youth and minors worldwide. A recent study of 49 European countries found that while 32 countries have passed antidiscrimination laws that apply to SOGI issues in education, only 6 countries have implemented the most recommended measures to ensure the safety of LGBTQ youth. Furthermore, six countries have laws that prevent students from learning SOGI-inclusive content in schools (IGLYO, 2022). Thus, the experiences of LGBTQ youth in schools vary from country to country. Further inquiry is needed to understand the experiences of LGBTQ youth in schools worldwide. Research of School and SOGI Minorities Internationally, schools remain the primary societal institutions for youth (in most countries, some form of schooling is mandated); they are institutions in which nearly all youth spend a significant portion of their lives. Given the universal importance of schools and normative cultures of schooling worldwide (including heteronormativity), the school lives of LGBTQ youth have received growing attention. In the last decade, there has been dramatic growth in the attention given to SOGI issues in schooling in research, practice, and policy in the United States and around the world. Much of the focus on LGBTQ students in schools has been on victimization and bullying, which is a significant issue in the lives of many youths. Studies in the United States have documented high rates of school bullying based on sexual orientation (Kann et al., 2016), More recently, national data included a measure of transgender identity and found that 35% of transgender students reported being bullied at school (Johns et al., 2019). A recent study by the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and

Introduction  7 Medicine identified bullying as a significant problem in schools, and that LGBTQ students are not only at a higher risk of being bullied but also that bullying is often discriminatory; it is often specifically homophobic or transphobic (Patterson, Sepúlveda, & White, 2020). School bullying and lack of safety are strong precursors of academic performance problems and mental and behavioral health risks for LGBTQ students. These patterns have been well-documented based on sexual orientation, and recent studies from several countries have documented similar patterns for transgender students (Clark et al., 2014; Day et al., 2017; Perez-Brumer et al., 2017). Students interact with teachers and other school personnel every day, and there is evidence that LGBTQ students may be treated differently from other students. Recent studies in the US document the ways in which SOGI intersects with race and ethnic identity, documenting the ways that LGBTQ youth of color are overrepresented in exclusionary discipline in schools (Poteat et al., 2016). Thus, the experience of growing up with multiple minority identities is relevant for LGBTQ youth and schools. Negative experiences at school include not only direct experiences of victimization and bullying but also more subtle experiences, such as peer social isolation or lack of support from adults. Such experiences are negative not only because they undermine academic performance and individual well-being during adolescence but also because experiences at school are a foundation for education and future achievement across the life course (NASEM, 2016). In the context of this evidence, a crucial question is how schools can address the problems that LGBTQ students face. A large and consistent body of research has identified several school-based policies and practices that help to keep all students, including those who identify as LGBTQ, safe and supported at school. These include inclusive, enumerated policies (school policies that include SOGI in nondiscrimination and anti-harassment), as well as school practices such as professional development for teachers and school personnel on LGBTQ issues, access for students to LGBTQ-related resources (books in libraries; lessons in classrooms), and opportunities for students to create supportive contexts (e.g., student-led clubs, often called Gender and Sexuality Alliances (GSAs) in the West). First, a growing body of research documents evidence that the presence of enumerated policies is associated with more positive school experiences and health for LGBTQ individuals and all youth. Second, pre-service and in-service training can help equip educators with practical tools to effectively support and protect all students. Third, students reported safer school climates when their school curricula focused on SOGI. Fourth, the presence of a GSA, as well as participation in one, can improve students’ school experiences and well-being (Russell et al., 2021). Much research on LGBTQ youth and SOGI issues in schooling has been conducted in the West. There have been multiple nationwide studies in North America (e.g., Kann et al., 2016; Kosciw, Clark, & Menard, 2022) and efforts to track the well-being of LGBTQ youth in schools across the nations of the

8  Makiko Kasai et al. European Union (IGLYO, 2022; Magić & Selun, 2018). There are several scholarly reports on SOGI issues in schools in Africa (Francis et al., 2019) and a growing number of studies on SOGI minorities in Asian contexts, as discussed earlier. This book is unique in bringing together scholarship on SOGI issues across Asian countries and contexts. SOGI Minorities in Asian Contexts Support for LGBTQ human rights in Asian countries and contexts seems to lag behind that of the Western world. There still may not be sufficient understanding in schools, and bullying incidents have occurred. For example, in July 2022, a second-grade elementary school child (8 years old) in Otsu City, Japan, complained of being bullied because of gender identity in a nursery school. The city’s third-party committee found that the bullying included ridicule concerning preferences for clothing and shoes. The child requested the city to investigate, and although preschool children were not covered by the Law Concerning the Promotion of the Anti-Bullying Measures, the city consulted the third-party committee in consideration of the impact on the growth of young children and identified a total of 11 incidents as bullying conduct, including exclusion and hitting. In this section, we summarize the legal framework, the medical system, and the school system. The following chapters provide more detailed information, but Table 1.1 is intended for comparison. Gender reassignment surgery is legal, as practiced in seven countries or regions. However, gender transitioning after surgery is not legal in many places. Gender recognition, however, is conditional in many cases and has not yet been enacted into the law in others. The most common conditions were age and body surgery. Insurance for treatment is not covered in five countries or regions and is self-funded. In the remaining three countries/regions, the treatment is covered by insurance, although there are limitations. Of the Asian countries included in this study, Taiwan is the only one that recognizes same-sex marriage by law. Although it does not have a law, Japan is the only country that recognizes same-sex relationships in a nonlegal manner. This system, known as the partnership system in Japan, is not legally effective, but each local government recognizes and considers that the partners are a couple. This is mostly in the form of guidelines; however, some have made it an ordinance. Next, a comparison of school systems shows that in the three countries/regions where students are allowed to enroll based on their gender identity in gender-segregated schools, such as boys’ and girls’ schools, there are only a few such schools in these countries. Regarding school uniforms, most Asian countries and regions have separate uniforms for boys and girls, but three countries have recently changed to gender-neutral uniforms or have allowed students to wear uniforms according to their gender identity upon request.

Table 1.1  Sexual and Gender Minorities in Eight Asian Contexts Gender Identity Legislation (Gender Reassignment)

Thailand Others (medical transitioning is not illegal, but there is no legal recognition of post-transition gender; a gender recognition law is being drafted)

Healthcare and Insurance

Sexual Orientation

School System

Legislation (Same- Not Legal, but It’s Sex Marriage, etc.) Equivalent to Marriage, Partnership

School System (Enroll in School Based on Gender Identity)

Medical No (but a court No (but a draft bill None transitioning case is pending is pending the services are widely the legislature’s available but Constitutional consideration) payable out of Court’s ruling on pocket only. SRS the is specifically constitutionality excluded from of limiting national health marriage to insurance opposite-sex coverage couples)

School System (School Uniform, etc.)

School Systems (Toilets, Locker Rooms, etc.)

Most schools. Mandatory genderseparated uniforms up to the bachelor’s degree level

A few (toilets are usually separate, Thai schools usually don’t have lockers or changing rooms)

(Continued)

Introduction  9

Gender Identity

China

Sexual Orientation

School System

Legislation (Same- Not Legal, but It’s Sex Marriage, etc.) Equivalent to Marriage, Partnership

School System (Enroll in School Based on Gender Identity)

School System (School Uniform, etc.)

None (because SRS only applies to over 20-yearolds, no minor can legally change their sex. For over 20-yearolds, it is legal to change their sex in the school record and enroll based on their gender identities)

There are two sets So far, there is no of school gender-neutral uniforms. For toilet in winter uniforms, Chinese most schools schools. use the same Chinese style for all schools usually students. For do not provide summer locker rooms uniforms, some or changing schools mandate room students to wear genderseparated uniforms, some do not

Legislation (Gender Reassignment)

Healthcare and Insurance

Gender reassignment surgery is legal. With the legal proof of SRS from a third-class hospital and written application, individuals can apply to change their gender identifications on ID cards and residence booklets

HRT and SRS are No available, but only in more developed cities and are not covered by public and private health insurance

Gender Identity

Sexual Orientation

No (the closest thing to this concept is Guardianship by conduct)

School System

School Systems (Toilets, Locker Rooms, etc.)

10  Makiko Kasai et al.

Table 1.1 (Continued)

Taiwan

Legislation (Gender Reassignment)

Healthcare and Insurance

Legislation (Same- Not Legal, but It’s Sex Marriage, etc.) Equivalent to Marriage, Partnership

Others (medical transitioning is legal, and you can change your legal document without medical transitioning)

Medical Legalized same-sex transitioning marriage in 2019 services not (Act for covered by Implementation national insurance of J.Y. Interpretation No. 748). Transnational couples, not including partners from mainland China, have the same marriage rights since 2023

N/A

School System (Enroll in School Based on Gender Identity)

School System (School Uniform, etc.)

School Systems (Toilets, Locker Rooms, etc.)

Some gender- Most schools have No locker or specified mandatory changing schools genderrooms. Most separated universities uniforms. have genderSchools mostly friendly toilets allow students but very few in to wear either elementary to sports or formal middle schools uniforms in schools

(Continued)

Introduction  11

Gender Identity Legislation (Gender Reassignment)

Hong Kong

Healthcare and Insurance

Sexual Orientation

School System

Legislation (Same- Not Legal, but It’s Sex Marriage, etc.) Equivalent to Marriage, Partnership

School System (Enroll in School Based on Gender Identity)

Other (multidisciplinary Gender No same-sex medical transition reassignment marriage law support services are surgery and available for those aged hormone 18 or above. Only those treatment for who go through both trans aged over 18 top and bottom gender is almost free in reassignment surgery Hong Kong, as will be able to change the these services are gender on the identity under public card but not the birth services. There is a certificate. The highest governmentcount in Hong Kong funded hospital recently (February 2023) that provides ruled that the above multidisciplinary government policy of medical, social, full sex affirming surgery and psychological should not be a support to trans prerequisite for trans people aged 18 or people to have their above in social gender changed on the and medical identity cards. It paves transition the ways for the possible change of the policy. Gender Recognition Act is not available)

Gender Identity

Sexual Orientation

No civil partnership

School System (School Uniform, etc.)

School Systems (Toilets, Locker Rooms, etc.)

None; Mandatory No locker or medical genderchanging transitional separated rooms. Most support uniforms up to universities services are Form 6. have genderonly Recently, in a friendly toilets available at few schools, but very few in age 18 or with medical elementary to above certificates from secondary psychiatrists or schools. Some pediatricians, trans students and consent are suggested letters from by the school parents, trans to use toilets students are able designed for to wear sports people with or formal disability uniforms in schools

School System

12  Makiko Kasai et al.

Table 1.1 (Continued)

Legislation (Gender Reassignment)

India

Healthcare and Insurance

Other (the issue of gender Health provisions reassignment or Gender given Affirmation Surgery (Transgender (GAS) has been Persons Act, addressed in the 2019). At least Transgender Persons one government Protection of Rights hospital in every Act, 2019. Under the state offers safe provisions of the 2019 and free genderact, a transgender affirming surgery person can apply to the district magistrate for a transgender person certificate only after SRS)

Legislation (Same- Not Legal, but It’s Sex Marriage, etc.) Equivalent to Marriage, Partnership

School System (Enroll in School Based on Gender Identity)

School System (School Uniform, etc.)

School Systems (Toilets, Locker Rooms, etc.)

India does not recognize samesex marriage or civil unions. In fact, it does not possess a unified marriage law

Enrollment in Nearly all schools Indian schools schools have separate have separate based on uniforms based toilets for the gender on the sex of the males and identity students. females. There (male/ However, a few is no provision female schools have for changing only) of the begun to opt for or locker student is gender-neutral rooms in possible in uniforms Indian schools a few schools only. As such, no specific check for a transgender student

(Continued)

Introduction  13

Gender Identity

Sexual Orientation

School System

Legislation (Same- Not Legal, but It’s Sex Marriage, etc.) Equivalent to Marriage, Partnership

School System (Enroll in School Based on Gender Identity)

School System (School Uniform, etc.)

No

Some (in cases of genderspecified schools)

Most schools. Many (toilets are Mandatory usually genderseparated by separated gender). The uniforms and changing hairstyles for rooms are middle and high expanding in school middle and high schools

Since 2015, partnership programs have been recognized by some regions

A few since 2020

No

None

Most schools have separate uniforms for girls and boys. Recently, some schools are allowing girls to wear pants Yes

Legislation (Gender Reassignment)

Healthcare and Insurance

South Korea

Others (from 2006, Supreme Court has established rules for legal gender recognition, but these are not considered laws and are highly restrictive)

Japan

Yes (SRS) is legal, and gender recognition has been conditionally approved since 2004)

Support for No transgender: Medical transitioning services are available in a few hospitals, and they are not covered by national health insurance at all In 2018, the No Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare covered only gender reassignment surgery Government-funded No health care system is not specificallyfriendly to the LGBTQ+ population

Malaysia No

School Systems (Toilets, Locker Rooms, etc.)

Transgender students are allowed to use teachers’ bathrooms and locker rooms Toilets. No locker rooms/ changing rooms

14  Makiko Kasai et al.

Table 1.1 (Continued)

Introduction  15 Regarding toilets and changing rooms in schools, most elementary and junior high schools do not have changing rooms. As for toilets, most countries and regions have separate toilets for boys and girls, but recently, there have been four countries and regions that have gender-neutral or gender-friendly toilets in some schools. Finally, although not included in the table, eight countries and regions provided information on educational content, and Thailand was the only country that required LGBTQ content. Most gender and sexuality studies are about gender equality and not SOGI minorities. An Overview of the Following Chapters Chapters 2–9 describe the actual situation in the Asian context. Each chapter begins with an overview of the situation of various minorities in the country and describes the conditions experienced by SOGI minorities in that context. Then, focusing on schools, the chapters discuss in detail the challenges that SOGI minorities face in schools after taking into account the various problems of schools, such as school bullying, school absenteeism, and so on. Finally, the chapters introduce practices that address these challenges. Each chapter is unique in its focus on these issues, but there are regional differences within each country. Chapters 10 through 12 are more theoretical, discussing how to think about minority issues in the future. First, Chapter 10 focuses primarily on the fact that the various minorities in schools do not appear separately, but they sometimes overlap in the same person. “Multiple minority” is the key word. Chapter 11 discusses the reality that the various minorities described in Chapter 10 sometimes conflict among groups and within individuals. The authors attempt to present some steps that have been taken to address these conflicts, but only in Japanese society. The reason for limiting the discussion to Japan is that it would be difficult to discuss the world as a whole without an overview of a vast amount of literature based on the knowledge of the societies of various regions. “Minority conflict” is the key word. The last chapter, Chapter 12, addresses the fact that one kind of minority group, from its experience as a minority, empathizes with other minorities and understands several ways to overcome the minority conflicts discussed in Chapter 11. It is a psychological process that serves as a bond between minority groups to overcome hardships together by connecting them, even though the minority groups are not generally connected. The key word is “inter-minority empathy.” This book reflects the social situation up to the year of writing/publication, and it is assumed that the state of minorities will continue to change dramatically in the future as Information and Communication Technology develops, making it possible, for example, to “wear identity” in the metaverse. However, the problems of minorities will not disappear completely, and they may appear in different forms. We hope that this kind of network of collaboration across national borders will provide a change in the future as well.

16  Makiko Kasai et al. References Amnesty International. (2008). United Nations: General assembly to address sexual orientation and gender identity: Statement affirms promise of Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Retrieved from https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/ 2021/07/ior410452008en.pdf Bishop, M. D., Fish, J. N., Hammack, P. L., & Russell, S. T. (2020). Sexual identity development milestones in three generations of sexual minority people: A national probability sample. Developmental Psychology, 56(11), 2177–2193. https://doi. org/10.1037/dev0001105 Clark, T. C., Lucassen, M. F., Bullen, P., Denny, S. J., Fleming, T. M., Robinson, E. M., & Rossen, F. V. (2014). The health and well-being of transgender high school students: results from the New Zealand adolescent health survey (Youth’12). Journal of Adolescent Health, 55(1), 93–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2013.11.008 Coyle, A., & Kitzinger, C. (Eds.). (2002). Lesbian and gay psychology: New perspectives. Blackwell Publishing. Day, J. K., Fish, J. N., Perez-Brumer, A., Hatzenbuehler, M. L., & Russell, S. T. (2017). Transgender youth substance use disparities: Results from a population-based sample. Journal of Adolescent Health, 61(6), 729–735. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jadohealth.2017.06.024 Ellis, J. S., Riggs, W. D., & Peel, E. (2019). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, intersex, and queer psychology: An introduction (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi. org/10.1017/9781108303750 Ellis, H. & Symonds, A. J. (2007). Sexual inversion: A critical edition. Palgrave macmillan. ISBN-978-1-349-28366-8 Ericksen, J. A., & Steffen, S. A. (2000). Kiss and tell: Surveying sex in the twentieth century. Social Forces, 79(2), 799–800. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/79.2.799 Francis, D. A., Brown, A., McAllister, J., Mosime, S. T., Thani, G. T., Reygan, F., … & Muller, M. (2019). A five country study of gender and sexuality diversity and schooling in Southern Africa. Africa Education Review, 16(1), 19–39. https://doi.org/10.108 0/18146627.2017.1359637 IGLYO. (2022). LGBTQI Inclusive Education Report. IGLYO. Retrieved from https:// www.iglyo.com/ie-2022/ Johns, M. M., Poteat, V. P., Horn, S. S., & Kosciw, J. (2019). Strengthening our schools to promote resilience and health among LGBTQ youth: Emerging evidence and research priorities from the state of LGBTQ youth health and wellbeing symposium. LGBT Health, 6(4), 146–155. https://doi.org/10.1089/lgbt.2018.0109 Kann, L., Olsen, E. O. M., McManus, T., Harris, W. A., Shanklin, S. L., Flint, K. H., … & Thornton, J. (2016). Sexual identity, sex of sexual contacts, and health-related behaviors among students in grades 9–12—United States and Selected Sites, 2015. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Surveillance Summaries, 65(9). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.ss6509a1 Kinsey, A. C., Wardell B. P., & Clyde E. M. (1948). Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. W.B. Saunders Co. Kosciw, J. G., Clark, C. M., & Menard, L. (2022). The 2021 national school climate survey: The experiences of LGBTQ+ youth in our nation’s schools. GLSEN. Retrieved from https://www.glsen.org/sites/default/files/2022-10/NSCS-2021-Full-Report.pdf Magić, J., & Selun, B. (2018). Safe at school: Education sector responses to violence based on sexual orientation, gender identity/expression or sex characteristics in Europe.

Introduction  17 The Council of Europe. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/37972772/_ 2018_Safe_at_school_Education_sector_responses_to_violence_based_on_sexual_ orientation_gender_identity_expression_or_sex_characteristics_in_Europe Meyer, J. K., & Reter, D. J. (1979). Sex reassignment. Follow-up. Archives of General Psychiatry, 36(9), 1010–1015. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.1979.01780090096010 Moyano, N., & del Mar Sanchez-Fuentes, M. (2020). Homophobic bullying at schools: A systematic review of research, prevalence, school-related predictors and consequences. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 53, 101441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. avb.2020.101441 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2016). Preventing bullying through science, policy, and practice. National Academies Press. https://doi. org/10.17226/23482 Oliven, J. (1965). Sexual hygiene and pathology: A manual for the physician and the professions. Lippincott. Patterson, C. J., Sepúlveda, M-J, White, J. (2020). Understanding the well-being of LGBTQ+ populations. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Perez-Brumer, A., Day, J. K., Russell, S. T., & Hatzenbuehler, M. L. (2017). Prevalence and correlates of suicidal ideation among transgender youth in California: Findings from a representative, population-based sample of high school students. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 56(9), 739–746. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jaac.2017.06.010 Poteat, V. P., Scheer, J. R., & Chong, E. S. (2016). Sexual orientation-based disparities in school and juvenile justice discipline: A multiple group comparison of contributing factors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(2), 229–241. https://doi. org/10.1057/978-1-137-51257-4_4 Russell, S. T., Bishop, M. D., Saba, V. C., James, I., & Ioverno, S. (2021). Promoting school safety for LGBTQ and all students. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 8(2), 160–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/23727322211031938 Russell, S. T., & Fish, J. N. (2016). Mental health in lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) youth. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 12, 465–487. https://doi. org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-021815-093153 Russell, S. T., & Fish, J. N. (2019). Sexual minority youth, social change, and health: A developmental collision. Research in Human Development, 16(1), 5–20. https://doi.or g/10.1080/15427609.2018.1537772 Russell, T. S. & Horn, S. S. (2017). Sexual orientation, gender identity, and schooling: The nexus of research, practice, and policy. Oxford University Press. https://doi. org/10.1093/med:psych/9780199387656.001.0001 Terry, D. J., Hogg, M. A., & White, K. M. (1999). The theory of planned behaviour: Self-identity, social identity and group norms. British Journal of Social Psychology, 38(3), 225–244. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466699164149 UNESCO. (2012). Education sector responses to homophobic bullying. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization 7.

2

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and School Life in Japan Makiko Kasai and Yuichi Toda

Introduction Today, Japanese society is facing a critical moment in which its homogeneous identity is transforming into a diverse one. Sexual and gender minorities, or lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people, have emerged as a group that is now understood as a minority group that often experiences stigma and exclusion. Awareness of sexuality and gender identities emerges in childhood and adolescence, and thus schooling is a crucial context in which children learn about and express their identities, and where support for sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) can improve school experiences for LGBT and all students. This chapter provides a context for understanding SOGI and school life in Japan. It offers a general overview of the history of minorities in Japan and an overview of SOGI in Japan, including history, and the current situation. Schools in Japan are then considered, with a focus on SOGI in schools. The chapter closes with suggestions for future research and practice. Minorities in Japanese Society Although Japanese society may not appear diverse, the number of foreigners is increasing, and various minority issues have arisen. Issues surrounding minorities in Japan are usually treated as issues of each minority group’s “human rights.” The Ministry of Justice lists some of the major human rights concerns in the country (MOJ, 2010). The first one is human rights issues related to “women,” and the second is “children” followed by “the elderly”; “persons with disabilities”; “Dowa problems”; “Ainu people”; “foreigners”; “people affected by HIV, Hansen’s disease, etc.”; “former prisoners”; “victims of crimes, etc.”; “human rights violations on the Internet”; and “homeless people.” The thirteenth and fourteenth are “sexual orientation” and “persons with gender identity disorder” (GID). The validity of such wording is also questionable. “Victims abducted by North Korean authorities” and “victims of human trafficking” follow them on the list. Among these issues, the Ministry of Justice acknowledges the Dowa problem as a human rights problem unique to Japan. Some Japanese people forced DOI: 10.4324/9781003430414-2

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity  19 to live in the Buraku district (Dowa Chiku) have been marginalized economically, socially, and culturally for a long time. This is due to the social stratification that has been in place for much of Japanese history, and they are still subject to various forms of discrimination in daily life. The historical background is described in detail by Neary, Nobuaki, and Midori (2019). Kobayakawa (2020) states concerning people in Buraku (Burakumin) that “Western researchers have attempted to understand Burakumin in relation to India’s system of outcastes.” With regard to ethnic minorities in Japan, discrimination against ethnic Koreans in Japan is considered an issue of oldcomers. However, since ancient times, Japanese people have accepted both the genes and culture of people who came to Japan from the Chinese continent and the Korean peninsula. “Old” here refers to the period before and after World War II. In contrast, one of the newcomers is the descendants of Japanese who had migrated to South America mainly after 1908 and were later invited to Japan to compensate for the labor shortage. Although the human rights issues related to religion cannot be ignored, they are not listed on the Ministry of Justice’s website. The issues of Muslim immigrants and refugees in recent years have not attracted much attention in Japan, unlike in Europe. However, due to the shortage of nurses and other workers, the number of immigrants from Indonesia and other Southeast Asian countries is increasing, and the Muslim population in Japan is expected to grow in the future. Various legal amendments have been adopted to resolve these issues. With regard to the Dowa issue, for 33 years since 1969, local improvement measures have been implemented based on the Law on Special Measures. The website of the Ministry of Justice states, “As a result, the physical infrastructure for the poor environment of the Dowa area has steadily improved, and the disparity with the general area has been greatly improved,” but discriminatory attitudes and practices, including discriminatory Internet postings, still persist. Mitsumori-Miller (2017) examined the antidiscrimination laws of Australia (Australian Racial Discrimination Act 1975) and Japan (the Anti-Discriminatory Speech Act) by comparing their operation, historical origins, and the current debate surrounding them. She argues that both are symbolic laws with no clear consequences for breaches. She further suggests that in the case of Japanese laws, the definition of hate speech is too broad, and the groups afforded protection under the law are too exclusive. Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Japanese Society Historical Background

Historically, Japanese culture and religious authorities did not show hostility toward the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning plus (LGBTQ+) community. As a result, Japanese culture has not been explicitly “homophobic” or “transphobic.” Traditional Japanese religions, such as Shinto,

20  Makiko Kasai and Yuichi Toda Buddhism, and Confucianism, do not prohibit homosexual behaviors and, further, in certain contexts, they viewed homosexual behaviors positively. Until the mid-19th century, Japan was tolerant toward same-sex sexual conduct and relationships (mainly between males; Shoushi, 2008). However, after the Meiji Restoration in 1868, newly imported ideas pathologizing such behavior and labeling them as “perverse desires” meant that same-sex sexuality could not be openly expressed (McLelland, 2000). Thoughts and structures that have been introduced, encouraged, and standardized through Westernization have made the male-female (heterosexual) model for families and relationships the norm in Japanese society (Shoushi, 2008). Violent incidents against LGBTQ+ people, such as assaults, murders, and injuries, have occurred in many places (Kasai, 2016). These incidents spanning 30 years have gradually brought public attention to discrimination against LGBTQ+ people and its effects, and have set the stage for gay and lesbian community organization (see Lunsing, 2005). In accordance with the views of the World Health Organization (WHO), the Japanese Ministry of Health and Labor eliminated “homosexuality” from the list of targets for medical treatment in 1994. The Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology (abbreviated as MEXT, at the time referred to as the Ministry of Education) had also eliminated “homosexuality” from the official list of sexual delinquencies included in the national manuals for teachers. In response to initiatives taken by several LGBTQ+ advocacy groups, the Japanese Society of Psychiatry and Neurology also declared in 1995 that it would respect the views of the WHO. Despite these basic advances, education measures by the Japanese government against discrimination, which include education on LGBTQ+ issues (Ministry of Justice, 2002), have not been effectively implemented. Overall, the conservative perspective within the Japanese educational system after the Meiji era prevents the discussion of the human rights of sexual and gender minorities. This perspective is consistent with the portrayal of LGBTQ+ people in Japan as abnormal, which is perpetuated through ignorant and derogatory comments that are often used in mainstream Japanese society and are reinforced by mainstream Japanese media. Sexual Orientation: Current Social Situation

The first same-sex partnership systems were implemented in 2015 in Shibuya and Setagaya wards in Tokyo, and in January 2021, they were implemented by 74 municipalities, which accounted for 33.4% of all populations in Japan. With regard to same-sex marriage, in 2021, at the time of this writing, a Japanese court for the first time said the country’s ban on same-sex marriage violates the constitution, which was a pathbreaking decision in a region of the world. Data from 2019 showed that approximately 7% of the Japanese population is nonheterosexual (Japan LGBT Research Institute. Inc., 2019). However, 83% of the participants answered that they had never encountered someone

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity  21 they knew to be LGBTQ+ in their lives. This implies a low recognition of sexual and gender minorities among Japanese people. Numerous studies on the mental health of LGBTQ+ have been conducted worldwide. These studies have mainly examined social stigmatization, internalized homophobia, and their negative consequences. In comparison, Japanese studies have focused on the internal conflict of hiding one’s sexual orientation and gender roles (Hidaka, 2000), the consequences of internalized homophobia (Miyakoshi, 2012), low self-esteem (Ishimaru, 2004), and higher stress in interpersonal relationships. Relatively higher risks of suicidal ideation/suicide attempts have also been reported (Kawaguchi, 2010). Gender Identity: Current Social Situation

Scientific research on GID emerged in Japan in the 1990s. Problematically, the term that has been used most frequently is GID rather than “transgender.” A court decision in 1969 declared sex change surgery (or gender reassignment surgery) to be a violation of the Eugenic Protection Act in the wake of the 1964 blue boys incident. Physicians stopped performing such surgeries, and academic studies on the topic disappeared. Before the incident, these surgeries were performed underground. However, this trend was challenged in 1995, when a professor of plastic surgery at Saitama Medical University applied to the Ethics Committee to perform sex change surgery on two patients (Yamauchi, 1999). The Ethics Committee issued a report that approved gender reassignment surgery as a treatment for GID. As a result, numerous individuals visit the hospital to undergo treatment (Shono, 2001). In 1997, the Japanese Society of Psychiatry and Neurology officially acknowledged medical treatment for GID and established guidelines. In 1998, the first gender reassessment surgery in Japan was completed at Saitama Medical School. In 2004, a law concerning special rules regarding the sex status of a person with GID was established, stating that a person could change their registered sex, and medical treatment for GID was officially approved by the Japanese government. From 2004 to 2019, 9,624 people changed their sex, followed by many others each year (gid.jp, 2018). In 2012, the Guidelines for Diagnosis and Treatment for GID, version 4 (Matsumoto, et al., 2012) was issued, and the use of hormones to support secondary sexual characteristics was approved. These guidelines made sex hormone therapy possible at age 15, so the number of pediatric operations is, therefore, likely to increase (Nakatsuka, 2013). Much more research attention has focused on people who are transgender and are known to encounter difficulties daily. Many studies have reported the emergence of depression and suicidal ideation in junior high school (Nakatsuka, 2010). Persons with GID have much more experience of being victimized (Nakatsuka, 2010) and suffer from a sense of isolation. In a survey of 1,138 GID people conducted by Harima and Ishimaru (2010), 62.0% reported harboring suicidal wishes, and 10.8% had engaged in a suicide attempt. In surveys outside

22  Makiko Kasai and Yuichi Toda the medical field, Nagasaka (2012) categorized problems experienced by transgender people as follows: (1) social maladaptation, (2) self-injury, (3) eating disorder, (4) depression, and (5) dual identity formation. LGBTQ+ Advocacy

In 2019, more than 90% of Japanese people knew the acronym LGBT (Japan LGBT Research Institute. Inc., 2019), and television programs and Internet websites offer new information about sexual and gender diversity. However, at the same time, some people still believe that there are no homosexuals around them and do not understand sexual and gender minorities. Those who do not understand sexual orientations other than heterosexual seem to think that allowing same-sex marriage will lead to a baby bust, which has nothing to do with the issue. Therefore, we need to educate such people and to advocate for human rights for LGBTQ+. Several organizations have been carrying out community-organizing activities since the 1970s. In 1984, the Japanese branch of the International Gay Association (IGA), an international organization of LGBT+ people, was launched. In May 1986, the branch held the first Asian Gay Conference. Two months before the conference, the Japan Association for the Lesbian and Gay Movement (OCCUR) was established. The first Tokyo Pride Parade was held in 1994. More than 200,000 people attended the “Tokyo Pride Parade 2019.” Various companies, communities, governmental organizations, and universities sponsored the parade. Almost all prefectures in Japan have at least one LGBTQ+ advocacy organization. Because of the growing public visibility and the LGBTQ+ community’s organizing activities over several decades, there have been advances in policies that recognize the needs of LGBTQ+ people. Various Issues in Japanese Schools The challenges faced by Japanese schools in recent years are discussed in the Compendium of Student Guidance (MEXT, 2010). The book is for schools and teachers, and comprehensively summarizes theories, concepts, and actual teaching methods of student guidance from elementary school to high school, based on the changes in social trends. It allows a common understanding among teachers and schools with regard to the counseling of students and systematic and organized approaches to student guidance. In the book, “smoking, drinking, and drug abuse,” “juvenile delinquency,” and “violent behavior” are listed first, followed by “bullying,” “issues related to the Internet and cell phones,” and “issues related to sex.” These are followed by “education for life and prevention of suicide,” “coping with child abuse,” “running away from home,” “school absenteeism,” and “dropping out of school.” These various issues are not independent of each other but are interrelated.

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity  23 However, awareness of the overlapping nature of “multiple victimization,” as pointed out by Finkelhor, Ormod, Turner, and Hamby (2005) is not yet common in Japanese society. With regard to “issues related to sexuality,” which is related to the theme of this book, Compendium of Student Guidance (MEXT, 2010) discusses “current situations and issues regarding sexuality among pupils/students.” Specific topics include “development of information technology and individual differences in sexual behavior,” “sexually transmitted diseases among teens,” “sources of information on sex and problematic behavior,” and “necessity of teacher training.” Although “prevention of and response to problematic behavior and sexual harm related to sex” is mentioned, there is no discussion of sexual and gender minorities. “Bullying,” “issues related to the Internet and cell phones,” “issues related to sex,” “education for life and prevention of suicide,” “running away from home,” “school absenteeism,” and “dropping out of school” are topics that are highly related to issues faced by sexual and gender minorities, and it is crucial that sexual and gender minorities be included in these official documents. SOGI and School Life in Japan Historical Background on School Settings

The Ministry of Education labeled homosexuality a “pervert delinquency” in the 1979 publication of Basic Data for Students’ Problematic Behavior: Junior High School and High School. The book described homosexuality as “unapproved behavior which is the acts that are contrary to social morals and disturb social order.” However, along with the shifting views of homosexuality in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, second edition, the International Classification of Diseases, and publications of the WHO, the Ministry of Health and Labor eliminated homosexuality from the list of targets of medical treatment in 1993. The MEXT, at the time referred to as the Ministry of Education, also eliminated homosexuality from the official list of sexual delinquencies included in the country’s teachers’ guidance manuals. This change influenced textbooks, and in the 2002 high school home economics textbook, there were descriptions of same-sex couples as a new family style. However, in the teaching guide and other textbooks, “sexual attractiveness to the other sex” was still described as normal development. In 2010, the Ministry of Justice and MEXT included LGBT people and issues in a white paper on human rights education, and MEXT issued a circular to each board of education regarding the needs of transgender students. During this period, each regional board of education grappled with LGBTQ+-related issues, and most of the focus was on issues of gender identity rather than LGB identity. In 2015 and 2016, MEXT issued another circular guide on the needs of not only transgender students but of all sexual and gender minority students.

24  Makiko Kasai and Yuichi Toda Sexual Orientation: Current School Settings

Hidaka (2017) conducted a survey on life events with 1,025 gay and bisexual youth and found that the average age at which they began to realize that they were gay was 13.1 years of age, first learned the words “homosexual” or “gay” at 13.8 years of age, felt that they were not heterosexual at 15.4 years of age, and realized that they were gay at 17 years of age. Among them, about 65% of the participants said that they have had suicidal ideation so far and the mean of them was 16.4 years of age. These mean ages tell that most of these life events occurred during junior and high school years. According to three Internet surveys conducted by Hidaka in 2006, between 50% and 60% of gay and bisexual males experienced being verbally bullied with words such as “homo” and “faggot,” 64.1% harbored suicidal wishes, and 15.1% had attempted suicide (Hidaka, 2006). Other studies showed that LGB students had experiences of nonattendance at school (23%) and self-injury (18%; Hidaka, 2008). In another study in which 6,255 LGBT+ youths were asked about their experiences at school and whether they had learned about sexual and gender minorities, 78.5% had not learned anything at all, 3.9% were taught that sexual and gender minorities were abnormal, and 10.7% were given negative information about sexual and gender minorities (Hidaka, Kimura, & Ichikawa, 2005).

Gender Identity: Current School Settings

According to a 2006 news report (Asahi News 5/19/2006), after negotiations with a boy and his parents, the school board allowed the boy to attend school as a girl. In 2010, another boy was allowed to attend school as a girl (Mainichi News, 2/12/2010). Because of these events, MEXT issued a circular to each board of education regarding GID students and their educational needs. The term “gender identity disorder” began to be viewed as problematic as a result of these events. Half of the children who experience gender dysphoria start their dysphoria before entering elementary school (Nakatsuka, 2010), and most of them realize it before puberty (Nakatsuka & Emi, 2004). Transgender individuals reported experiencing a considerable amount of difficulty, especially in school settings. They experienced intense stress in connection with school uniforms, bathrooms, physical measurements as part of health checkups, club activities, and gym classes (Kasai, 2019). Many studies have reported the emergence of depression and suicidal feelings during junior high school (Nakatsuka, 2010). Yamauchi, Shono, and Kasawa (2001) studied these issues, arguing that inconsistencies between one’s biological sex and self-recognition and self-awareness of one’s gender trigger extreme emotional pain and a variety of functional disorders, which manifest in the form of difficulty attending school or as mental health problems. Persons with GID have experiences of being victimized (Nakatsuka, 2010) and suffer a sense of isolation. A survey of the 1,138 GID people (average age of female-to-male [FtM] respondents was 25.4 years, and male-to-female [MtF] respondents was 32.6

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity  25 years) conducted by Harima and Ishimaru (2010) showed that 62.0% of the respondents harbored suicidal wishes, with 10.8% having engaged in suicidal behavior. Suicidal wishes and behaviors occur most frequently among junior high school students, with the following cited as the most common motivators: (1) bullying, (2) a sense of isolation, (3) a sense of physical dysphoria, (4) breakup of a relationship (such as “I cannot have a child with you”), (5) transphobia that has become internalized, (6) a wish to be born a different person, (7) a lack of feeling like they are living an authentic life and a sense of worthlessness, (8) impediments to receiving physical treatment (e.g., opposition by family members), and (9) despair/hopelessness about the future (Harima & Ishimaru, 2010). Nakatsuka and Emi (2004) conducted a self-report questionnaire survey with 329 GID individuals and found that, compared to FtMs, who often begin to acknowledge a sense of gender dysphoria before entering elementary school, MtFs develop a sense of gender dysphoria around the beginning of adolescence. The most frequent problems experienced by GID students during adolescence were nonattendance at school (29.2%), suicidal thoughts (74.8%), and self-harm and suicidal behavior (31.0%). In addition, 17.9% of them also showed secondary conditions, such as obsessive-compulsive neurosis or depression, in adolescence, which was more frequent among MtFs. These findings suggest that children with gender dysphoria are at high risk for being bullied, victimization, nonattendance at school, suicidal ideation, and suicide attempts, which occur most frequently in puberty and can cause major psychological damage. Teachers’ Knowledge of and Response to SOGI Issues in Schools

As mentioned earlier, MEXT shifted its attitudes toward LGBTQ+ in 2010, but many teachers still confuse sexual orientation with gender identity. Therefore, teachers need to accurately learn about sexuality and gender, and discriminatory behaviors and attitudes toward LGBTQ+ students. They also need to develop skills to protect and prevent LGBTQ+ students from being bullied. Yasukawa and Kadota (2015) reported that more than 50% of teachers in elementary, junior, and high school showed a lack of confidence in dealing with gender-incongruent students, and the main reasons were “lack of experience” (65%) and “lack of information” (45%). To improve teachers’ abilities to support LGBTQ+ students, MEXT distributed a handbook on dealing with issues related to SOGI in 2016. Based on these guidelines, each regional district made handbooks. Moreover, in 2017, the Bullying Prevention Measures Promotion Law was passed, and sexual and gender minorities were included. However, the description was in the attachment, suggesting that LGBTQ+ issues were not the main focus of the MEXT. LGBTQ+ students are at high risk for many psychological problems, and there is an urgent need for teachers to support these students. Teachers are often the first persons to whom LGBTQ+ students reveal their sexual orientation, and it is crucial that teachers have the ability to help students and their families.

26  Makiko Kasai and Yuichi Toda LGBTQ+ in School Settings: Hope for the Future

When LGBTQ+ students realize their own SOGI, schools should be prepared to offer support and to help them understand that even though they are a minority, they are part of a diverse group and that there is nothing wrong with that. In order to achieve this, teachers need to educate students so that they will not discriminate against minorities. It is important that people not only understand that minorities are in a difficult situation and that the majority must help them (a vertical relationship) but also that they are equal and should understand and accept each other (a horizontal relationship). For example, it is necessary to teach students that not everyone has the same sexuality. Many people believe that Japan is monocultural, but in reality, it is not. In the past, many Japanese people ignored the differences and diversity of the country. Research on SOGI and School Life in Japan Since the 1990s, psychology researchers in Japan have investigated self-esteem, acceptance of sexuality, and identity development in sexual and gender minorities, but those studies targeted only the adult population. There have been few studies on SOGI and school life in Japan. This section discusses some of the research that has been conducted on Japanese adults. Self-Esteem

Many Western studies have shown that homosexual and bisexual individuals have lower self-esteem, are more socially isolated (Friedman & Downey, 1993), and have more mental health problems, such as depression and anxiety (Remanfedi, 1990) due to stigmatization and aversion by society. In Japan, Hidaka (2000) conducted an Internet survey and found that homosexuals with more heterosexual role conflicts had more “difficulty posing as heterosexuals”; had higher depressive tendencies, trait anxiety, and loneliness; lower self-esteem; and higher rates of depression compared with the general population. Harima (2014) suggested that sexual and gender minorities tend to experience negative emotions such as prejudice toward themselves, guilt, and anxiety due to the incomprehension, discrimination, and bullying of those around them. Ishimaru (2004) stressed the fact that not all sexual and gender minorities have low self-esteem and clarified that “a sense of acceptance from others” has a positive impact on self-esteem. Ishimaru (2004) studied “sexuality-focused acceptance” in relation to coming out among homosexuals (bisexuals) and argued that sexuality-focused acceptance, which is unique to homosexuals (bisexuals), is reflected in the extent to which homosexuals have a network of other homosexuals with whom they do not have to hide their sexuality. According to Miyakoshi (2012), acceptance of one’s sexuality is a critical experience, and to accept one’s sexuality without burden, it is often necessary

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity  27 to wait for the right time. The study found that acceptance is not a one-time process, but rather a process that is constantly repeated through various events (love, marriage, children, etc.) experienced throughout a person’s life. Identity Development

Several sexual and gender minority identity development models have been proposed in the United States (e.g., Cass, 1979; D’Angelli, 1994; McCarn & Fassinger, 1996; Troiden, 1989). However, cultural and social contexts certainly influence identity development. In Japan, Ishimaru (2004) pointed out that the identity development of homosexuals follows a transition from a period of aversion to homosexuality, a period of confusion and turbulence, and a period when homosexuality is integrated into the self. Ishimaru (2004) also suggested that homosexuals themselves have internalized homophobia, which is a “value system that internalizes the prejudice against homosexuality in a society.” Based on interviews with homosexuals, Miyakoshi (2012) concluded that internalized homophobia consists of two types of aversion – aversion to homosexuality and other homosexuals – with the idea that heterosexuality is normal at its root. According to previous research, sexual identity development and self-acceptance of lesbians in Japan are affected by the acceptance of women’s sexuality and internalized homophobia (Kajitani & Yokoyama, 2007), and sexual identity development of gay men in Japan is motivated by the dissolution of isolation from heterosexual peers and the establishment of a genuine relationship (Takato & Okamoto, 2017). Even if they experience rejection of their coming out, they do not revert to themselves, and that experience will not affect their self-acceptance. In Western studies, the integration of identity is assumed to be the stage of coming out and accepting one's own inward and outward identity, but coming out is not necessarily the final stage in Japan. As shown by Arima and Sonoda (2010), homosexuals try to balance the two worlds (the homosexual world and the heterosexual world), dichotomize the world, go back and forth between the boundaries, and use the self of each of the two worlds. Living in two worlds without coming out has been shown to increase loneliness (Ishimaru, 2004; Kirihara & Sakanishi, 2003). Research on the Whole Student (Classroom and School)

As mentioned earlier, there is almost no empirical data on the psychology of LGBTQ+ children and adolescents in Japan; however, some studies on the general student population have examined student perspectives on LGBTQ+ issues. Tanaka, Ito, and Kasai (2018) reported that junior high school students had more negative attitudes toward lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals than university students because of anxiety among junior high school students

28  Makiko Kasai and Yuichi Toda about being viewed as different from others and the tendency toward uniformity. Kasai, Tanaka, and Kawakami (2019) studied the differences in attitudes among junior high school, high school, and university students and found that students with the following characteristics tended to be less accepting of lesbian and gay students: (1) high tendency to reject individuals and things they view as different and (2) high anxiety about being seen differently from others. Among younger age students, direct interaction with the LGBTQ+ community was found to be related to receptive attitudes, and a high tendency toward conformity was related to rejective attitudes. Among Japanese young people, those who want to be considered “normal” and are afraid of standing out are more likely to have negative attitudes toward sexual and gender minorities, and therefore the solution for this is positive interaction with sexual and gender minorities. Emerging Practices in Japanese Schools The MEXT released statements on sexual and gender minorities in 2012 and 2015 to promote the safety of these students at school. Some schools have tried incorporating SOGI issues into the classroom and have shifted their value system from heterosexualism and cisgenderism to being inclusive of SOGI. Primary Prevention: Educating Teachers

With regard to the attitudes of teachers in current Japanese schools, Hidaka (2016) surveyed 5,979 teachers and found that more than half believed that homosexuality and GID needed to be addressed in their classes, but the percentage of teachers who had incorporated the topics into the classroom was low at 13.7%. When the teachers who had no experience in teaching homosexuality or GID were asked “why,” 42.3% answered that they had no instance where it was opportune to do so, 26.1% said that they did not know much about homosexuality or GID, 19.1% said that the topics were not discussed in the textbooks, 19.1% said that they wanted to teach the topics, but it was difficult to do so, and 19.1% said that the topics were not included in the curriculum. In a survey by Sueishi (2013) of 1,834 teachers and staff (including 707 general teachers and 622 school nurses), more than 90% of the teachers knew about GID, but less than 50% said they could explain the difference between GID and homosexuality. This indicates that the teachers themselves did not have the correct knowledge. As described earlier, for schools to become safe places for sexual and gender minority students, it is important to make the school environment more accepting and positive toward gender diversity. However, some teachers and staff who are supposed to be in charge of conveying the diversity of sexuality believe that sexual diversity is too complicated a topic for them to address. However, some faculty members try to tackle these issues.

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity  29 Primary Prevention: Good Practices in School Settings

To make schools a safe place for all students, including students of diverse sexualities, a training program for teachers has been developed. This program was created to train counselors to be positive toward sexual and gender minority clients (Kasai & Okahashi, 2011; Odo & Kasai, 2017). It was later modified as a program for teachers and has been implemented in kindergartens, elementary schools, middle schools, and high schools. This program is designed to provide accurate knowledge and information about LGBTQ+ issues and to foster positive attitudes among teachers and counselors. It is based on the lesbian, gay, and bisexual training curriculum of the American Psychological Association graduate school for counselors, the Handbook of Counseling and Psychotherapy with Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Clients, which are used as textbooks in these graduate schools (Perez et al., 2007), and Pedersen's (2000) training course on multicultural understanding. The Pedersen course consists of three aspects: awareness, knowledge, and skills (Pedersen 2000). However, previous studies have revealed that there is another important aspect of the implementation of these programs. It is the motivation to learn about the content (Kasai, 2013). Therefore, this program consists of four stages: (1) motivation, (2) awareness, (3) knowledge, and (4) skills. To make the participants more familiar with the situation and the historical events surrounding the LGBTQ+ community in Japan, this program includes resources from LGBTQ+-related communities and groups. The program has been shown to be effective in practice (Kasai, 2011; Kasai, 2019; Kasai & Odo, 2018; Motoki & Kasai, 2019). Sasaki (2018) researched sexual diversity in the classroom among junior high school students. Specifically, the author examined whether students’ aversion to homosexuality and transgenderism decreased in a design with a control group. The results of the study showed that the teaching of sexual diversity significantly decreased students’ negative attitudes toward homosexuality and transgenderism. It was also found that boys had more negative attitudes toward homosexuality and transgenderism than girls, suggesting that more focus should be placed on increasing understanding and awareness of sexual diversity among boys. In Hasegawa and Kasai’s (2018) study of the effects of teaching about sexual diversity to junior high school students on acceptance of diverse sexuality, self-acceptance, and acceptance of others, it was found that knowledge, motivation, skills, tolerance, and awareness of the issues faced by sexual and gender minorities increased after the class. Secondary and Tertiary Prevention: Practices of Psychological Support

As described earlier, LGBTQ+ students are at high risk for a variety of psychological problems. For this reason, MEXT has issued notifications requesting appropriate responses and support for LGBTQ+ students (MEXT, 2010,

30  Makiko Kasai and Yuichi Toda 2015) and has distributed a handbook to schools (MEXT, 2016). In some schools, teachers address the difficulties faced by sexual and gender minorities as a human rights issue. School nurses are often involved, and students often come out to school nurses when they are worried about their health, or when they are bullied in the classroom and take refuge in the nurse’s office, or when they go straight to the infirmary. In a survey conducted by Kasai in 2016, more than 98% of school nurses wanted to offer “support in some way,” but the number of school nurses who have actually “supported” sexual and gender minority students is 37.7%. In other words, many school nurses want to support sexual and gender minority students if they are in trouble, but in fact, they do not believe that they have the knowledge, experience, or skills to help or support them, and they also lack confidence. Only about 6% of the teachers said they could “teach” SOGI (Kasai, 2016). It is also important to educate school counselors, as they are often dispatched to schools to support students. However, many school counselors also feel that they have never been involved in such situations or are not confident in dealing with them. According to a survey conducted by Matsutaka and Hidaka (2012), even among those who are engaged in professional work as counselors, there are few opportunities to receive education on sexual and gender minorities in graduate school counselor training programs, and even if there are learning opportunities, they tend to receive education only on GID. They also felt that it was difficult to obtain the practical knowledge and skills needed to effectively address LGBTQ+ issues, which leads to a lack of self-confidence in supporting these clients. In the future, it will be important to position LGBTQ+ issues as human rights issues in schools and to establish a system to ensure that training is provided. Activities in the Community

Some activities provide support to LGBTQ+ students outside of school. In 1994, an LGBTQ+ organization called AGP (http://www.agp-online.jp/ Welcome.html) was formed to support LGBTQ+ people in the medical, psychological, social welfare, and educational fields, including doctors, psychologists, nurses, social workers, and teachers, as well as students who aspire to become such professionals. The goal of the organization is to provide LGBTQ+ people with the information and support they need to help them lead fulfilling lives in society and within themselves, using the knowledge and skills of their respective fields of expertise. Regular meetings were held to support the people concerned, and telephone counseling and awareness-raising activities were also conducted. Members of AGP also took the lead in establishing the Shirakaba Clinic, which aims to provide high-quality medical care to sexual and gender minorities. SHIP, an organization for sexual and gender minorities, was established in Kanagawa Prefecture (SHIP, http://ship-web.com/) in 2002. The organization carried out various educational activities. In 2007, SHIP became the

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity  31 Kanagawa Rainbow Center SHIP, which is largely engaged in networking, community support, and health counseling with LGBTQ+ people and allies. Other support groups have been established in various regions to raise awareness and to carry out various networking activities. Nijiro i-Ru in Osaka Prefecture is particularly active in communicating to all children, especially those of sexual and gender minorities, that it is okay to be who you are (https:// nijiiroi-ru.jimdofree.com/). In addition to networking activities, some of them also provide group counseling to LGBTQ+ people and their supporters and families. Previous studies have highlighted the importance of support by the LGBTQ+ community and self-help groups for sexual and gender minorities. Hotta (1998) stated that it is important for homosexuals to participate in a community of people who share the same sexual orientation as themselves. This is because those who have accepted their homosexual identity, even temporarily, can join such networks and gain not only information and the opportunity to interact with others but also professional psychological support. Sannomiya (2014) clarified the effects of community participation on self-esteem and mental health among lesbians. Furthermore, “value change” at events and bars promoted mental health only among the teenage participants. This suggests that when lesbians struggle with their sexual orientation and identity during adolescence, it is important for them to have opportunities to interact with people who share the same sexual orientation (Sannomiya, 2014). Several narratives of the process of acceptance of one’s sexuality as different from that of heterosexuals include interacting with people of the same sexual orientation (e.g., Edogawa & Tsujikawa, 2011). Although there are no public institutions in Japan that specialize in providing support for LGBTQ+ people, Akashi City hired two LGBT specialists in April 2020 as fixed-term professional staff to plan and develop policies to promote understanding of LGBT and diverse sexualities (Kobe Shimbun, March 27, 2020, https://www.kobe-np.co.jp/news/sougou/202003/0013225275.shtml). In many other regions, human rights offices seem to be in charge of dealing with this issue, but there is currently a mix of those with and without knowledge of LGBTQ+. Even today, there are some council members who publicly state, “[T]here are none in our region.” Thus, although the number of local activities is increasing and LGBTQ+ parades and events are being held in many places, there is still a lack of public awareness. Further Challenges

In order for LGBTQ+ students to grow up without psychological difficulties, we must improve the awareness and response skills of teachers. This includes not only those who are already in the classroom but also education students at colleges and universities. It should be required that future teachers learn about LGBTQ+ issues. Minorities include not only sexual and gender minorities but also different ethnicities, religions, nationalities, classes, etc., and it is difficult to learn about all of them separately or to educate students about them.

32  Makiko Kasai and Yuichi Toda Adopting the concept of “inter-minority empathy” (Kasai, 2019; Kasai & Odo, 2018; see Chapter 12), when each individual becomes aware of his or her minority-ness and his or her own experience as a minority, can increase empathy for other minorities. In other words, if all students, teachers, and staff can learn to understand both the majority and minority aspects of themselves, they will be able to understand many human rights issues empirically, which will make human rights education efforts more meaningful. References Arima, S., & Sonoda, N. (2010). Homosexuals’ sexuality: Sights and a view of studies. Kurume University Psychological Research, 9, 89–97. Cass, V. C. (1979). Homosexuality identity formation: A theoretical model. Journal of Homosexuality, 4, 219–235. https://doi.org/10.1300/J082v04n03_01 D’Angelli, A. R. (1994). Identity development and sexual orientation: Toward a model of lesbian, gay, and bisexual development. In E. J. Trickett, R. J. Watts, & D. Birham (Eds.), Human diversity: Perspectives on people in context (pp. 312–333). Jossey-Bass. Edogawa, K., & Tsujikawa, M. (2011). Research on the psychological support for LGBT person concerned’ s self-awareness: From the perspectives of the narrative approach. The Journal of School Education, 23, 53–61. http://hdl.handle. net/10132/3728 Finkelhor, D., Ormod, R. K., Turner, H. A., & Hamby, S. L. (2005). Measuring poly-victimization using the Juvenile Victimization Questionnaire. Child Abuse & Neglect, 29, 1297–1312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2005.06.005 Friedman, C. R., & Downey, J. (1993). Psychoanalysis, psychobiology, and homosexuality. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 41(4), 1159–1198. https:// doi.org//10.1177/000306519304100410 Gid.jp (2018). Survey on the number of changes in the treatment of gender due to the Special Law on Gender Identity Disorder (2018). https://gid.jp/research/research0001/ research2020092301/ Harima, K. (2014). Concept of sexuality. In K. Harima & T. Hirata (Eds.), Psychological support for sexual minorities: Understanding sexual orientation and gender identity (pp. 15–25). Iwasaki Gakujutsu Publisher. Harima, K., & Ishimaru, K. (2010). Gender identity disorder and suicide. The Japanese Journal of Psychiatric Treatment, 25(2), 247–251. Hasegawa, Y., & Kasai, M. (2018, August 11). Development of a scale for accepting sexual diversity among Japanese youth. The 126th Annual Meeting of American Psychological Association, San Francisco, CA. Hidaka, Y. (2000). Heterosexual role conflict and psychological distress among gay and bisexual me. Adolescentology, 18(3), 264–272. Hidaka, Y. (2006). Distress of gay men (2). Journal of Public Health Nurse (Hokenshi Janal), 62(2), 660–663. Hidaka, Y. (2008). Behavioral epidemiological study of psychosocial factors of HIV infection risk behavior among MSM (men who have sex with men). The Journal of AIDS Research, 10，175–183. Hidaka, Y. (2016). Mental health of gay and bisexual men. Human Mind, 189. 21–27. Hidaka, Y. (2017). REACH Online 2016 for Sexual Minorities. https://www.health-issue. jp/reach_online2016_report.pdf

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity  33 Hidaka, Y., Kimura, H., & Ichikawa, S. (2005). Health report of gay and bisexual men. https://www.health-issue.jp/gay-report/2005/index.html Hidaka, Y., Operario, D., Takenaka, M., Omori, S., Ichikawa, S., & Shirasaka, T. (2008). Attempted suicide and associated risk factors among youth in urban. Japan Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 43, 752–757. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s00127-008-0352-y Hotta, K. (1998). Identity development of gay university students. Student Counseling Journal, 19(1), 13–21. Ishimaru, K. (2004). Sexual orientation minority and self-esteem maintenance: A sense of social inclusion hypothesis. The Japanese Journal of Psychology, 75, 191–198. https://doi.org/10.4992/jjpsy.75.191 Japan LGBT Research Institute. Inc. (2019). LGBT awareness and behavior survey 2019. https://lgbtri.co.jp/news/2410 Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT). (2010). Compendium of Student Guidance. https://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/shotou/ seitoshidou/1404008.htm Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology (MEXT). (2015). Implementation of detailed supports for gender identity disorder students. https://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/houdou/27/04/1357468.htm Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology (MEXT). (2016). Implementation of detailed supports for students with gender identity disorder, sexual orientation and gender identity (Teachers’ handbook). https://www.mext.go. jp/b_menu/houdou/28/04/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2016/04/01/1369211_01.pdf Japanese Ministry of Justice (MOJ). (2010). Major human rights issues. http://www. moj.go.jp/JINKEN/kadai.html Kajitani, Y., & Yokoyama, K. (2007). The consideration about coming out/non-coming out of homosexuality: The case studies of same-sex couples living together. The Psychological Report of Sophia University, 31, 111–118. Kasai, M. (2011). Process of developing the Japanese version of lesbian, gay, and bisexual affirmative counseling self-efficacy scale. Research Bulletin of Naruto University of Education 26, 76–87. Kasai, M. (2013, August 3). Embrace cultural issues in counseling training and supervision [Paper presentation]. The 121th Annual Meeting of American Psychological Association, Honolulu, HI. Kasai, M. (2016). School counselors’ support for sexual minority youth. Psychotherapy, 42(1), 19–23. Kasai, M. (2019). Inter-minority empathy: A factor related to the attitudes acknowledging sexual and gender diversity. Bulletin of Center for Collaboration in Community Naruto University of Education, 34, 136–141. https://doi.org/10.24727/00028109 Kasai, M., & Odo, Y. (2018). Promoting attitudes of acknowledging sexual and gender diversity: Interviews with sexual majorities. Research Bulletin of Naruto University of Education, 33, 50–59. https://doi.org/10.24727/00028000 Kasai, M., & Okahashi, Y. (2011). Development of an LGB sensitive counselor training program. Journal of Japanese Clinical Psychology, 29(3), 257–268. Kasai, M., Tanaka, M., & Kawakami, A. (2019, September 4). Rejective or receptive attitude toward sexual orientation among Japanese junior, high school and university students [Paper presentation]. The 33rd Annual Conference of EHPS, Dubrovnik, Croatia.

34  Makiko Kasai and Yuichi Toda Kawaguchi, K. (2010). Homosexual and peer counseling. The Japanese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 37(4), 70–73. Kirihara, N., & Sakanishi, T. (2003). Sexual minorities and their coming out. Bulletin of Saitama University, 52(2), 121–141. https://doi.org/10.24561/00017314 Kobayakawa, A. (2020). Japan’s modernization and discrimination: What are buraku and burakumin?CriticalSociology,47(2),111–132.https://doi.org/10.1177/0896920520915493 Lunsing, W. (2005). The politics of okama and onabe: Uses and abuses of terminology regarding homosexuality and transgender. In M. McLelland & R. Dasgupta (Eds.), Genders, transgender, and sexualities in Japan (pp 81–95). Routledge. Matsumoto, Y., Abe, T., & Ikeda, K. (2012). The guidelines for diagnosis and treatment for GID, version 4. Psychiatria et Neurologia Japonica, 114, 1250–1266. https://www. jspn.or.jp/uploads/uploads/files/activity/journal_114_11_gid_guideline_no4.pdf Matsutaka, Y., & Hidaka, Y. (2012). An examination about counselors' education and training in counseling homosexuals and their understanding about homosexuality: An analysis of interviews. Journal of Hiroshima-Bunkyo Clinical Psychology, 3, 18–23. McCarn, S. R., & Fassinger, R. E. (1996). Revisioning sexual minority identity formation: A new model of lesbian identity and its implications. The Counseling Psychologist, 24(3), 508–534. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000096243011 McLelland, M. (2000). Male homosexuality in modern Japan: Cultural myths and social realities. Richmond, England: Curzon. Ministry of Justice. (2002). Basic plan for human rights education and enhancement. https://www.moj.go.jp/content/000073061.pdf Mitsumori-Miller, M. (2017). Anti-discrimination laws in Australia and Japan. Focus Asia-Pacific (Newsletter of the Asia-Pacific Human Rights Information Center), 88, 11–14. https://www.hurights.or.jp/archives/focus/section3/2017/06/anti-discriminationlaws-in-australia-and-japan.html Miyakoshi, T. (2012). Lives of members in sexual minority: Psychological process in which homosexual adults accept their sexual orientation. Bulletin of Counseling Institute, 36, 63–77. Motoki, A., & Kasai, M. (2019, June 9). A practical study of a training program on gender diversity for pre-school educators [Paper presentation]. The 39th Annual Convention of the Association of Japanese Clinical Psychology, Yokohama, Japan. Nagasaka, N. (2012). Gender identity disorder-related issues: Adding a time perspective to the Biological-Psychological-Social model. Meiji Gakuin University Graduate School Bulletin of Psychology, 17, 1–11. Nakatsuka, M. (2010). Gender identity disorder in school health: Liaison between school and hospital. Japanese Medical Journal, 4521, 60–64. Nakatsuka, M. (2013). Gender identity disorder for adolescents. Clinical Gynecology and Obstetrics, 67, 712–716. Nakatsuka, M., & Emi, Y. (2004). Psychological problems in adolescent transsexuals: Possible benefits of medical intervention. Maternal Sanitation (Bosei Eisei), 45(2), 278–284. Neary, I., Nobuaki, T., & Midori, K. (2019). A history of discriminated buraku communities in Japan. Folkestone: Renaissance Books. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvzgb66x Odo, Y., & Kasai, M. (2017, November 21). A practical study of a program to develop “Attitudes to Appreciate Sexual Diversity” [Paper presentation]. The 36th Annual Conference of the Association of Japanese Clinical Psychology, Yokohama, Japan. Pedersen, P. (2000). A handbook for developing multicultural awareness (3rd ed.). American Counseling Association.

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity  35 Perez, P. M., DeBord, K. A., & Bieschke, K. J. (2007). Handbook of counseling and psychotherapy with lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients. American Psychological Association. ISPB: 155798610X Remanfedi, G. (1990). Fundamental issue in the care of homosexual youth. Medical Clinics of North America, 7(5), 1169–1179. Sannomiya, A. (2014). How does lesbian and bisexual women’s participation in sexual minority’s community activities influence their mental health and self-esteem? An examination using interviews and questionnaires (First Prize Essay). Women’s Studies Forum, 28, 133–161. https://doi.org/10.18878/00002475 Sasaki, S. (2018). Effects of classes on sexual diversity on the reported homophobia and transphobia of junior high school Students. The Japanese Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 313–326. Shono, N. (2001). Gender identity disorder from psychological assessment. Journal of the Japanese Society for the Rorschach and Projective Methods, 5, 29–42. Shoushi, S. (2008). Japan and sexual minorities. Focus, 52, 5–7. https://www.hurights. or.jp/archives/focus/section2/2008/06/japan-and-sexual-minorities.html Sueishi, K. (2013). Attitudes toward education and awareness-raising about gender identity disorder in schools. Japanese Association of GID, 6(1), 27–31. http://www. okayama-u.ac.jp/user/jsgid/vol6_mokuji.pdf Takato, S. & Okamoto, Y. (2017). Insights on the process leading to sexual orientation disclosure in adolescent males identifying as homosexual and bisexual in Japan. Journal of Japanese Clinical Psychology, 35(3), 297–303. Tanaka, M., Ito, T., & Kasai, M. (2018). The effect of anxieties about being thought different from others and tendency toward uniformity on the attitude to homosexual. Bulletin of Center for Collaboration in Community Naruto University of Education, 33, 121–129. Troiden, S. S. (1989). The formation of homosexual identities. Journal of Homosexuality, 17, 43–73. https://doi.org/10.1300/J082v17n01_02 Yamauchi, T., Shono, N., & Kasawa, T. (2001). Psychological aspects of gender identity disorder. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 30, 751–756. Yamauchi, T. (1999). Is sex reassignment surgery permissible?: Gender identity disorder and sexuality. Akashi Shoten. Yasukawa, Y., & Kadota, A. (2015). Current school support for “students who feel sense of incongruity or ambivalence of sexual identity.” Memoirs of Osaka Kyoiku University, 64(1), 99–115.

3

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and School Life in Mainland China Shuo “Coco” Wang

Introduction The sexual and gender minority community has been recognized more and more by researchers and the public in Mainland Chinese society. With the increased attention on this population, sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) students’ mental health and well-being have also come into public view. Several studies have indicated that SOGI youth tend to experience more psychological issues, have thought about suicide, and even engage in nonsuicidal self-injury behaviors more often than other students. However, there has not been a comprehensive support system that considers and is capable of helping SOGI youth. This chapter aims to provide an overview of the minorities in Mainland China and the history and current situations of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, questioning, queer, and so on (LGBTQ+) community and SOGI students. Various school issues and specific issues related to SOGI students are described. Current research and practices for the SOGI population are discussed, and the chapter closes with suggestions for the future. Minorities in Mainland Chinese Society Throughout history, China has always been ethnically and even racially diverse. Looking at the current Mainland Chinese society, there are 56 ethnic groups, with Han being the majority group (National Bureau of Statistics of China, 2021). According to the seventh national census in 2021, Han consists of 91.11% of the entire population, and the other 55 ethnic minorities are 8.89%. Among the ethnic minority groups, most have languages, customs, and value systems different from the Han. Similar to other societies, Mainland China has various issues with minority groups. One of the unique issues in Mainland Chinese society is Zhi-Guo ethnicity which can be translated to “cross-stage ethnicity” (Academy of Contemporary China and World Studies, 2021). Cross-stage ethnicity refers to the minority ethnic groups in a primitive or enslaved society before 1949 and transformed directly into a socialist society after the establishment of the People’s Republic of China. The dramatic changes have vigorously stroked their working DOI: 10.4324/9781003430414-3

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Mainland China  37 conditions, cultures, customs, and value systems. Poverty elimination has been the focus of the support to cross-stage ethnic groups (Yang, 2014). After decades of work, nine cross-stage ethnic groups in Yunnan Province had been lifted out of poverty (Liu, 2020). However, it is not enough. According to Yang (2014), “human poverty,” which refers to the opportunity and the right to choose for essential human development, should also be focused on because it has been limiting the economic development, democracy formation, and welfare system within the cross-stage ethnic groups. Therefore, promoting education has become another central approach to support. According to the Yunnan Education Department (2017), the government has issued funds to increase the number of kindergartens, elementary, middle, and high schools in cross-stage ethnic communities. The schools have hired more principals and teachers who were trained to provide bilingual teaching so that students from cross-stage ethnic groups can learn in their languages and Mandarin simultaneously (Yunnan Education Department, 2017). Another unique minority issue is the Lost-Only-Child family. To balance the speed of population growth and economic and societal development, China implemented the One-Child policy between 1980 and 2016. During this period, one married couple was allowed to have only one child. The policy has numerous impacts on Chinese society, one of which is the life quality of families who lost their only child for various reasons. According to the sixth national census in 2010, 660,000 Lost-Only-Child families comprised 0.16% of all the families (National Bureau of Statistics of China, 2015). The life quality of these families has been a pressing issue. According to Zhu et al. (2018), the Lost-Only-Child parents who were single and had a monthly income lower than 3,500 yuan, had no grandchildren, and had fair or poor self-reported health conditions, presented significantly lower levels of subjective support, objective support, and utilization of support. The good news is that during the National People’s Congress (NPC) and the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) in 2022, the member of the CPPCC suggested the government provides financial subsidies to the Lost-Only-Child families (Ministry of Civil Affairs of the People’s Republic of China, 2022). Starting in 2022, 12 provinces and cities will begin to provide financial support, indemnificatory apartments, medical subsidy, and flexible retirement pensions to the Lost-OnlyChild families. However, the social support and mental health needs mentioned by Zhu et al. (2018) have not come into the picture yet. The Chinese government issued “China’s ethnic policy and common prosperity and development of all ethnic groups” in 2009, which presented an overall attitude of supporting the autonomy and equality of all ethnic groups, protecting diversity, and balancing the challenges and differences between the minority and majority groups (The State Council Information Office of the People’s Republic of China, 2009). In addition, the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China lists hatred and discrimination against any race and ethnicity as criminal acts (National People’s Congress, 2018). It is essential to have the law and policies to protect ethnic minority groups. However, such

38  Shuo “Coco” Wang issues and challenges have existed for a long time and will continue to exist. Therefore, raising awareness in broader society is crucial to evoke social support for ethnic minority groups. Mainland Chinese society has diverse religions, such as Buddhism, Taoism, Islamism, Catholicism, and Christianism (The People’s Republic of China State Bureau of Religious Affairs, 2013). The Chinese government issued “China’s policies and practices on protecting freedom of religious belief ” in 2018 to ensure the freedom of religious beliefs, legal protection of the rights of religious groups, and support the development of various religions (The State Council Information Office of the People’s Republic of China, 2018). Religious issues should be noticed, but more information about them should be provided. Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Mainland Chinese Society Historical Background

Researchers have estimated that there are about 3% to 5% of LGBTQ+ individuals in a population, which means that in Mainland Chinese society, there are roughly 42 to 70 million LGBTQ+ individuals (the United Nations Development Programme, 2016). Within this vast sexual minority population, only 5% chose to come out regarding their sexual minority identities. In contemporary Chinese society, though the visibility and positive attitudes toward the sexual minority population have slowly increased, discrimination and rejection are still common phenomena. The LGBT population has always existed in Chinese history, and during specific eras, homosexuality was viewed as a popular style of living (Li, 2021). In ancient feudal society, homosexuality, especially a gay relationship, was prevalent within the upper social class (Li, 2021). The earliest record of homosexuality was found around 4,000 years ago and even before the Clan tribes. The Northern Song Dynasty was a turning point because homosexuality started to be considered a subculture that was anti-reproduction, anti-human relations, and anti-traditions. Some researchers believe that the prevailing Confucianism at that time could be a contributor. In Confucianism, “孝” (xiao), which refers to filial piety, is a significant value (Xu & Bao, 2019). According to filial piety, reproduction is a pathway to the propagation of the family and the continuation of the blood. In addition, the fulfillment of parents’ expectations is another essential component. Therefore, being a homosexual would violate the value of filial piety because the individual could not reproduce for the family or have lower social status due to discrimination. However, the value of “中庸” (zhong yong), which refers to the Golden Mean, actually has helped to support a tolerant and accepting attitude toward the LGBT community (Xu & Bao, 2019). The Golden Mean emphasizes harmony in diversity, which means that when there is antithesis, it is recommended to focus on diversity. When viewing homosexuality from this value, understanding,

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Mainland China  39 equality, and putting self into others’ positions are highly recommended. The Golden Mean is still deeply rooted in contemporary Chinese society. According to Li and Zheng (2013), though the overall acceptance of homosexuality is not high, the percentages of people with extreme attitudes are very low, such as fully accepting or rejecting. Meanwhile, Buddhism, as a religion and a life philosophy, has profoundly influenced the view of homosexuality and the overall LGBTQ+ community in Chinese history (Li, 2012). Buddhism does not have any discipline that is against sexual minorities. Buddhism treats heterosexuality and homosexuality equally because it believes that love hinders liberation from suffering, which is the focus of this religion. Western religions have negatively impacted the view of LGBTQ+. According to Zhang and Zhang (2010), Christianity was brought into the Chinese culture during colonization, and its belief in homosexuality has spread over the land. In Christianity, homosexuality is viewed as a demoralization that should be sentenced to death. This belief can also be found in the current Chinese society because of the Christian community in China and the permeation into the value system (Zhang & Zhang, 2010). In 1911, another critical turning point in Chinese history, the feudal regime finally ended, and democracy and republicanism started. In 1928, the Criminal Law of the Republic of China stipulated that in private, voluntary homosexual actions were not illegal anymore. The Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China, issued in 1997, has continued with this judgment. Henceforth, homosexual actions and relationships are understood and accepted by the public on a broader scale. Throughout Chinese history, it is not hard to see that the overall attitude toward LGBTQ+ is relatively conservative. Within this context, homosexuality has much more visibility than other sexual minority groups. It is significant to point out that some aspects of Chinese culture have held an inclusive and supportive attitude toward sexual minority groups for a long time. It might be beneficial to bring these aspects to the surface of the culture and emphasize them so that the understanding and acceptance of LGBTQ+ can be raised more. Sexual Orientation: Current Social Situation

In 2016, the first lawsuit against homosexual marriage was sentenced in Mainland China (Guo, 2016). A gay couple sued the Bureau of Civil Affairs because they were rejected to marry legally, and they believed that the Marriage Law of the People’s Republic of China allowed homosexual marriage. As many people expected, the couple lost the lawsuit, and the Chinese court indicated that only a female and a male could get married legally in China. Though the lawsuit did not change the existing marriage law, it brought the homosexual community into the public view and certainly raised recognition of homosexual marriage. According to the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China (National People’s Congress, 2020), which took effect on January 1, 2021, a legal marriage is still between a male and a female, and a civil partnership of a homosexual

40  Shuo “Coco” Wang couple is not acknowledged. In 2019, the Nanjing Notary Public Office (2019) published a statement indicating that the office would like to provide a notary of Guardianship by Conduct to homosexual couples who want to appoint their partners as guardians to legally handle their medical and financial situations in the future. This has been a popular solution for many homosexual couples in Mainland Chinese society. According to an online survey, 80% of homosexual individuals expressed that they would prefer to utilize this notary to share a few legal rights of themselves with their partners (Wang & Feng, 2019). Family and marriage have been essential components of the value system throughout Chinese history. Since homosexual marriage is not legalized and the pressure of getting married is still enormous, cooperative marriage or marriage of convenience has become an option. Cooperative marriage refers to the marital formation of a gay male and a lesbian female who marry each other to hide their sexual orientation identities and fulfill their parents’ expectations of marriage (Peng, 2014). According to the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) report in 2016, which consisted of 18,088 SOGI individuals, 13.2% of the married participants were engaged in cooperative marriage (The United Nations Development Programme, 2016). Though cooperative marriage has its benefits, such as reducing the pressure of getting married from the family and having legal protection within the marriage, it also comes with negative consequences. In cooperative marriage, homosexual individuals must constantly lie about their minority identities, making the family environment oppressive and toxic (Quesada, 2018; Peng, 2014). In addition, homosexual individuals may need to handle more issues regarding childrearing with parents from both sides and household and financial issues with the legally married partner. These issues could cause tremendous distress and potential mental health issues. In Chinese culture, having offspring is another vital responsibility. According to the Civil Code (National People’s Congress, 2020), homosexual couples cannot adopt children together, but single individuals who are at least 40 years older than the adoptees can adopt children. This means that homosexual individuals, whether in a relationship or not, can adopt children as long as they conform to the legal requirements. However, because homosexual individuals cannot get married legally, about 3,000 lawful rights, interests, and welfare are lacking in almost every aspect of their daily life. Therefore, propelling the legalization of homosexual marriage is the top priority. Though in 2018 the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (11th ed.; ICD-11) started to be implemented in the department of health at all levels in Mainland China, conversion therapy has still existed and been active. Until January 2019, at least 96 public hospitals and private psychiatric clinics had provided conversion therapy services to homosexual, bisexual, and transgender individuals (Zeng et al., n.d.). In 2014, a homosexual man who voluntarily attended conversion therapy to “cure his abnormal sexual orientation” ended up prosecuting the private psychiatric clinic because of the suffering he endured by receiving electroconvulsive therapy

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Mainland China  41 (Tcheng, 2017). The Beijing Haidian People’s Court sentenced that the plaintiff won the lawsuit because homosexuality is not a disease, and the clinic deceived the plaintiff by providing false information and invalid medical procedure. Though conversion therapy still exists, this lawsuit has given proof of legal protection and confidence to the sexual minority community and sent a vital signal to the public. Until the writing of this chapter, the research on sexual orientation minorities in Mainland Chinese society has primarily focused on the following areas: (1) HIV and promoting healthy sexual behaviors (Zhang et al., 2022), (2) stigma and impacts on mental health (Chen et al., 2021), (3) family relationships (Huang et al., 2022), (4) identity development and coming-out process (Bai, 2021), and (5) internalized homophobia (Yang, 2020). Compared to the researchers in Western societies, the researchers in Mainland Chinese society seem to pay more attention to the family dynamics and how they impact the sexual orientation minorities in identity development, values on marriage, having children and childrearing, and internalized homophobia. Considering the nature of Chinese culture, which is family- and relationship-oriented, it is not hard to understand how these topics are essential to study in this societal context. Gender Identity: Current Social Situation

Starting on January 1, 2022, the World Health Organization’s (2019) ICD-11 has officially started to be implemented, which means the depathologization of the transgender population is formally practicable. Though in 2018 the National Health Commission of the People’s Republic of China started to require the Mainland Chinese health system to implement ICD-11 to impel the depathologization of transgender on this land, there has been little success (Zeng et al., n.d.). One reason is that the medical and mental health professionals in Mainland Chinese society have mixed utilization of ICD-11, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.; DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association, 2013), and the Chinese Classification of Mental Disorder (3rd ed.; CCMD-3; Chinese Society of Psychiatry, 2001). In CCMD-3, transsexualism is still categorized as a mental disease under psychosexual disorders. Due to the lack of regulations in the mental health field, doctors, psychologists, and therapists usually make their own decisions on which diagnostic manuals should be used in their settings. Therefore, it is adding more difficulties in depathologizing the transgender population and providing them the imperative services. For the gender identity minority community, especially the transgender population, sex reassignment surgery (SRS) is an essential topic of discussion. In 1983, the Department of Orthopedics in the Third Hospital of Peking University performed the very first SRS in Mainland China, which was called a transsexual operation at that time, on Zhang Ke Sha, who is a transgender woman (Dong, 2009). The surgery was very successful, but the details were

42  Shuo “Coco” Wang kept secret and used for medical research purposes only. In 1990, Mainland China had its first publicly reported SRS, which Dr. He Qing Lian, a plastic surgeon at Shanghai Changzheng Hospital, performed. Though SRS was not legalized at that time, until 2007, there were around 400,000 individuals requesting it. Only about 2% of them were able to have the surgery (Dong, 2009). Due to the lack of legalization and immature medical technology, many doctors feared performing SRS. A profound improvement for SRS is that in 2009, the Ministry of Health of the People’s Republic of China issued a trial of the Sex Change Operation Technical Management Standard, which provided preliminary safeguard of technology review, clinical management, quality of medical care, and medical safety of SRS (Li, 2010). In 2017, the National Health Commission of the People’s Republic of China (2017) issued the Code for Technical Management of Gender Reassignment, an advanced version of the previous standard. This updated code enhanced the safeguard and changed the “sex change operation” to “sex reassignment surgery.” This change in terminology has promoted the depathologization of the transgender population and decreased misconception and stigmatization in public. Though SRS is legalized now, there are still numerous difficulties in practice. According to the survey provided by the Beijing LGBT Center and Peking University Department of Sociology (2017), among 2,060 transgender participants, 51% of them expressed a need for SRS. However, only 14.8% had SRS performed on them. Close to 90% of the participants who needed SRS reported that they were forced to give up because of a lack of financial resources, lack of approval from parents, and being underage. Among the transgender participants who had SRS performed in Mainland China, around 20% reported being discriminated against by medical professionals and other patients, invasion of privacy during the SRS process, and surgical accidents and sequela. These data show that the law of SRS still has many defects and needs more improvement. The existing Code for Technical Management of Gender Reassignment (National Health Commission of the People’s Republic of China, 2017) has some improvements compared to the previous standard made in 2009. However, it still brings tremendous difficulties and obstacles to the transgender population in practice. For instance, transgender individuals must have proof of diagnosis of transsexualism from a psychiatrist or psychologist to prove that they have “a mental disease,” so they need to utilize SRS as a treatment. This is not helping transgender individuals to reduce their internalized transphobia and stress; meanwhile, it does not help the medical professionals and the public to have a correct understanding of the transgender population. Another example is that transgender individuals requesting SRS must provide a certificate of acceptance from immediate family members, regardless of age. This means that transgender individuals must come out to their families and get their approval or at least get them to sign the certificate. It is not hard to imagine how difficult this could be. Some transgender individuals completed suicide because they could not get the certificate to request SRS, and they were highly discriminated

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Mainland China  43 against, beaten, disowned, and even threatened to be killed by family members (The United Nations Development Programme, 2018). Hormonotherapy is another necessary demand for the transgender population. According to the report in 2017 (Beijing LGBT Center & Peking University Department of Sociology, 2017), 71% of the transgender individuals who expressed the need for hormonotherapy felt that it is “hard,” “very hard,” or “almost impossible” to access safe and reliable treatment. Under the circumstances, 25% of the transgender individuals who needed hormonotherapy expressed depression, 28% expressed anxiety, 15% reported suicidal ideation, and 1% indicated suicidal attempts and self-injury behaviors. Because of the difficulties in obtaining standard treatment, 33% of the transgender individuals acquired hormone drugs through denormal sources, such as medications from foreign countries of which they did not know the names (7%) and drugs from acquaintances of which they did not know much information (5%). About 1% of transgender individuals reported using animal drugs, and 5% even tried to remove their genitals by themselves. These data show that obtaining regular medical services and treatment for the transgender population in Mainland China is still extremely difficult. Most of these treatments and settings provided are not included in the public health system or private health insurance (The United Nations Development Programme, 2018). It means that transgender individuals must pay out of pocket for these expensive treatments, which has caused most of them to end up with cheaper but nonreliable treatments or not be able to receive completed and long-term treatments. In the existing law in Mainland China, transgender individuals can choose to change their legal names and genders on the census register, but the premise is the completion of SRS (The United Nations Development Programme, 2018). Because educational institutions do not have the right to change the gender listed on the issued diploma, it negatively impacts transgender individuals’ continued education, employment, and promotion. Due to the lack of standardized policies, many transgender individuals are forced to come out at school, work, and other public places, which causes them to be discriminated against. In the past decade, more research has focused on the gender identity minority population in Mainland China. The following areas seem to be the focal points: (1) HIV and high-risk sexual behaviors (Gao et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2021), (2) utilization and satisfaction in medical service (Liu et al., 2021), (3) mental health status (Xia & Liu, 2021), (4) discrimination and potential solutions (Sun, 2020), and (5) lack of legal and human rights (Li & Wang, 2019). It is worth noting that though pathologization in practice still exists, depathologization in research has slowly improved, as evidenced by much less research using the term “transsexualism” or describing gender identity minority as a disease in the past five years. The public view of gender identity minorities has slowly changed as well. According to the Public Opinion of Transgender Rights: In China (UCLA Williams Institute, 2021), 45.9% of the participants reported that they had seen

44  Shuo “Coco” Wang transgender individuals before but did not know them personally; besides, 14% indicated that they had transgender acquaintances. When asked about the legal and human rights of the transgender population, 66.2% of the participants reported that transgender individuals should be allowed to have surgery so that their body matches their identity, 64.9% stated they should have the right to adopt children, 59.1% agreed with rights of conceiving or giving birth to children, and 53.2% believed rights of marrying a person of their birth sex. When asked about depathologization, 62.9% of the participants believed that transgender individuals are a natural occurrence, and 62.6% agreed that they are brave to express their transgender identity. Though the reality for gender identity minorities in Mainland China is exceptionally rough, the increasing inclusive attitudes for this population have brought hopes for the future. LGBTQ+ Advocacy

According to UNDP’s report in 2016, though the public view toward the sexual minority community had become more positive, when asked questions related to personal interactions with sexual minority individuals, the participants’ attitudes appeared to be more conservative (The United Nations Development Programme, 2016). Among 28,454 participants, about one-third reported that they felt uncomfortable interacting with sexual minority individuals and did not believe that sexual minority individuals were suitable and capable of raising children. At least 10% of the participants indicated they could not accept their children as members of the sexual minority community. Meanwhile, the findings pointed out that about two-thirds of the participants stated that they could not accept their children as transgender individuals, which was much higher than the groups who could not accept their children as being homosexual or bisexual individuals. This shows that the public still holds stigmas and discriminatory views toward this population. Therefore, it is imperative to educate the public about the sexual minority community and their needs and advocate for the LGBTQ+ population’s human rights. According to Recording Civic Action in China (Stanford Libraries, n.d.), 30 nongovernmental and nonprofit Weibo accounts, archived websites, and organizations have been established and developed to advocate for LGBTQ+ human rights since 2000. In 2008, Beijing LGBT Center was established and dedicated to providing mental health services, legal consultation, and community support to sexual minority individuals. In 2009, Trueself held the first Family and Friends Conference in Guangzhou, during which more than ten parents whose children were homosexual and had come out to them attended to discuss their processes of accepting their children’s sexual minority identities and how to support other parents and relatives. The same year, Shanghai Pride held the first LGBTQ+ parade in Mainland China (Shanghai Pride, n.d.). At the same time, more and more LGBTQ+ student organizations on university campuses were created to support the needs of sexual minority college students. However, in 2021, many of these organizations and groups were closed.

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Mainland China  45 According to BBC NEWS Chinese (2021), the WeChat accounts of “ColorsWorld” at Peking University, “Zhihe Society” at Fudan University, and “Sex and Gender Research Society” at the Renmin University of China were shut down because of complaints, indicating these accounts violated the Regulations on Administration of Information Services for Internet Users’ Public Accounts. In 2020, Shanghai Pride announced that the yearly LGBTQ+ parade would stop all activities with no plan of resuming any time soon (Shanghai Pride, n.d.). Many of these organizations do not have active websites at this time. Though LGBTQ+ advocacy has been experiencing a hard time, several organizations have persevered in providing various kinds of support to sexual minority individuals and utilizing different platforms to educate the public. The Beijing LGBT Center has actively operated its Weibo account, publishing educational programs on sexuality, such as The Story of Non-binary Individuals. On Dou Yin (Chinese TikTok), Trueself has regularly published interviews of parents of sexual minority individuals on how they have experienced the coming out of their children and providing tips to help other parents. Even though much active advocacy work has decreased in the past two years, the persistence of these organizations has continuously helped the LGBTQ+ community to be seen, understood, and even accepted by the public. Various Issues in Mainland Chinese Schools One of the significant issues in Mainland Chinese schools is bullying. According to a study conducted by the Modernization of Educational Governance Lab at East China Normal University between 2019 and 2020, the prevalence of bullying was 32.4% among 130 elementary, middle, and high schools across six provinces (China Daily, 2021). The prevalence of relational, verbal, physical, and cyberbullying, respectively, was 10.5%, 17.4%, 12.7%, and 6.8%. Though the prevalence has reduced, the researchers believed it was still too high. Left-behind children are a unique group in Mainland Chinese society and have unique issues compared to other countries. Left-behind children refer to minors who are younger than 16 years old, whose parent or parents are migrant workers, and who are not able to live with their parents (Fu & Liu, 2022). According to the Ministry of Civil Affairs (2018), there were 6.97 million left-behind children in rural areas in 2018. They have experienced internalized problems, such as obsessive and compulsive symptoms, bigotry, and hostility, and externalized problems, such as risky health behaviors, illegal behaviors, and deceitful acts (Fu & Liu, 2022). Whether in left-behind children or the general minor population, psychological issues have become increasingly prevalent in Mainland Chinese schools. According to a study conducted by the Psychiatry Department at Chongqing Medical University No. 1 Affiliated Hospital, among 100,000 students from elementary, middle, and high schools, 40% of them reported experiencing problematic psychological symptoms, and 24% indicated that they were

46  Shuo “Coco” Wang diagnosed with mental health disorders (Shi, 2021). More than 12% of the students stated that they were diagnosed with depression. The first time students reported engaging in nonsuicidal self-injury behaviors was between 11 and 14 years old. More than 17% of the students reported engaging in self-injury behaviors and had suicidal ideation or attempted suicide. Some other psychological issues include anxiety, issues related to sexual development, Internet addiction, unhealthy relationships, isolation, and so on (Gan et al., 2020). When discussing issues related to sexuality development, the primary focuses are nonprotected sexual behaviors, prevention of sexual diseases, lack of sexual development knowledge, and so on (Gan et al., 2020; Xu & Luo, 2014; Xue & Luo, 2016). In China’s Children’s Development Programme (2021–2030), the promotion of sexuality education to school-aged children is identified as one of the primary goals (National Working Committee on Children and Women under State Council [NWCCWSC], 2021). However, this goal’s approach attempts to create educational programs that teach students “the right gender and moral conceptions, and the right understanding of binary gender relationships.” The sexual minority population and their related concerns are not mentioned in the program. SOGI and School Life in Mainland China Historical Background on School Settings

Since 1949, sexuality education has undergone three periods in Mainland China: the lockdown period (1949–1977), the stirring period (1978–1987), and the developing period (1988 till now) (Sichuan Sex Sociology and Sexuality Education Research Center, 2017). During the lockdown period, the main focus of sexuality education was to eradicate the mystery of sex and its related topics and prepare the beginning of research on the need for sexuality education among minors and young adults. During the stirring period, the taboo of sexuality education had been reduced by more academic work done by sex researchers and more published national policies on sexuality education. In 1988, “The Circular of Puberty Education in Secondary Schools” was issued by the State Education Commission and the National Population and Family Planning Commission, which marked the official beginning of sexuality education in Chinese secondary schools. As mentioned earlier in this chapter, the most recent China Children’s Development Programme (2021–2030) has added sexuality education for all school-aged children to the goals for all school systems in Mainland China (NWCCWSC, 2021). However, there has been no specific national or governmental curriculum or guide on conducting sexuality education in schools, the implementation, content, and quality of sexuality education depend on each school and its principal, teachers, and other staff. In fact, across the three periods of sexuality education in Mainland China, sexual minorities or LGBTQ+-related information and issues have been rarely mentioned.

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Mainland China  47 Sexual Orientation: Current School Settings

In a national study that included 732 LGBTQ youth students whose minimum age was 16 years old, 66.1% of them reported feeling comfortable or very comfortable with their sexual orientation identities (Wei & Liu, 2019). When asked about coming-out status, 93.1% indicated that they had come out to friends and 78.5% to schoolmates. However, 75.6% stated that they remained closeted with schoolteachers. Among the students who did not come out, 78.8% were male students, and 12.5% were female students. The average age of male students’ initial awareness of their sexual minority identities was 14.9, which was earlier than female students, which was 15.4. However, female students came out earlier than male students at an average age of 17.5 vs. 18.2. Both bisexual and questioning students became aware of their sexual orientation identities later than gay and lesbian students. The researchers also found that though 66.1% of LGBTQ students felt safe and 36.4% felt they belonged at school, 42.2% indicated that they could not be who they were, and 32.9% felt sexual minority students were not treated with as much respect as other students. More than half (55.3%) of LGBTQ students felt uncomfortable or very uncomfortable discussing LGBTQ issues with their teachers. Few students (1.2%) felt their schools had specific rules protecting them from homophobic bullying or other forms of discrimination. According to a survey in 2018, among 4,015 high school students in Hunan Province, 3.7% of them self-identified as being bisexual, 2.0% being homosexual, and 15.4% being questioning of their sexual orientations (Liu et al., 2020). Within the last six months, 16.2%, 25.9%, and 14.9% of bisexual, homosexual, and questioning students, respectively, reported being bullied, which is higher than heterosexual students, in whom 12.1% reported being bullied. On the other hand, when asked if they had bullied others, 21.0% of homosexual students reported “yes,” which is much higher than 4.9% of heterosexual students, 4.7% of bisexual students, and 3.9% of questioning students. Within this study, homosexual high school students appeared to be involved in bullying (being bullied and bullying others) more than the other groups. In another study which included 2,385 students from Grades 7 to 12 in Tianjin, 15.42% reported being nonheterosexual, and 28.26% indicated questioning their sexual orientations (Song et al., 2021). The researchers found that compared to heterosexual students, nonheterosexual students experienced more psychological crises, engaged in nonsuicidal self-injury behaviors more frequently, and had more suicidal attempts. Meanwhile, the nonheterosexual students also appeared to experience higher overall perceived discrimination, higher perceived verbal discrimination, and higher avoidance than heterosexual students. Gender Identity: Current School Settings

According to the 2017 Chinese Transgender Population General Survey ­Report (Beijing LGBT Center & Peking University Department of Sociology

48  Shuo “Coco” Wang [Beijing LGBT & PUDS], 2017), the majority of transgender and gender nonconforming (TGNC) individuals become aware of their gender identities before the age of 18. About 31.9% are aware between 7 and 12 years old, 29.4% between 13 and 17 years old, and 22.2% between 4 and 6 years old. Meanwhile, 39.4% of them chose to disclose their gender identities to others between the age of 13 and 17, and 34.7% between the age of 18 and 24. In 2020, the Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University conducted a study that included 12,108 students from 18 secondary schools in Suzhou to compare the mental health and well-being of TGNC and cisgender students (Sohu, 2020). According to the study, nonsuicidal self-injury behaviors are more prevalent among TGNC students, with nonbinary female students having the highest rate of 23.2%, followed by transgender male students (23.1%) and transgender female students (21.0%). Meanwhile, the prevalence of nonsuicidal self-injury behaviors in cisgender female and male students is 12.8% and 8.9%. For attempted suicide, TGNC students also appear to have higher rates: 14.6% for transgender female students, 13.4% for nonbinary male students, 10.7% for nonbinary female students, and 10.3% for transgender male students. The rates for cisgender female and male students are 4.4% and 3.8%. When being asked if students had been bullied at school in the past year, TGNC students sequentially appear to have higher rates, with 19.8% for transgender female students, 16.4% for gender nonconforming male students, and 16.1% for nonbinary male students (cisgender male: 8.9%, cisgender female: 4.5%). In the 2017 report (Beijing LGBT & PUDS, 2017), the prevalence is even higher: 75.05% of the transgender female individuals reported being bullied at school, 72.79% for gender queer individuals, 69.18% for cross-dresser individuals, and 64.99% for transgender male individuals. The most prevalent types of bullying are “cruel nicknames,” mocked publicly,” “insulted or gossiped about in person,” “rumors spread,” and “isolated and excluded.” In another study, TGNC individuals reported being sexually harassed or assaulted by schoolmates and teachers, such as “being touched on certain body areas or the entire body to figure out their gender identities” (Liu, 2019). Overall, compared to college, middle school is described as the most unfriendly and difficult time by TGNC individuals, followed by elementary school and high school (Beijing LGBT & PUDS, 2017). In Mainland China, the right to education of TGNC individuals is not specified in any laws or governmental policies. However, as Chinese citizens, their rights are protected by the existing national laws and policies on education. For example, the Compulsory Education Law of the People’s Republic of China stipulates that all citizens have equal rights and opportunities for education (Liu, 2019). However, reality tells a different story. In a focus group study that included 32 transgender individuals, researchers found that though the inequality of enrollment at primary and secondary schools for transgender students is avoided by the implementation of compulsory education law, being suspended and forced to drop out of school has been happening to them (Liu, 2019). First, transgender students could be suspended or drop out due to

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Mainland China  49 violation of discipline, such as fighting, smoking, drinking, and being in a romantic relationship. It is worth mentioning that some transgender students were punished or suspended because they came into conflicts with other students who bullied them. This situation happens more in middle and high schools. Second, some transgender students had to apply for suspension or drop out because of being severely bullied and in a highly unfriendly school environment. In this situation, though students actively choose to leave school, they are forced to do so. The dropout rate among TGNC students is disproportionately high, and it is more difficult for transgender female students to graduate and go through education than transgender male students (Beijing LGBT & PUDS, 2017). This shows that the right to education for TGNC individuals is not truly protected, and the school environment is still dangerous for them. Most primary and secondary schools in Mainland China require students to wear school uniforms. School uniforms are usually designed under the traditional understanding of gender, which is binary. For example, there are usually two types of summer uniforms: pants for cisgender male students and skirts for cisgender female students. Though some transgender students can purchase the uniforms they prefer, they have to apply to the school by disclosing their gender identities, forcing them to come out (Liu, 2019). In addition, most campuses’ dorms, restrooms, and shower rooms are also designed for cisgender males and females only. Many transgender students can only be assigned to these facilities based on their assigned gender identities. One transgender student reported using the accessible restroom for their entire school life to avoid discomfort. The lack of gender-appropriate facilities at school brings tremendous stress to TGNC students and violates their privacy. These findings show that the school environment is still highly discriminatory, stigmatized, and even dangerous for TGNC students. Their mental health and well-being need much more attention, and schools need to provide gender-appropriate facilities and services to TGNC students that can support their learning and living on campus. It is also clear that there is a considerable need for teachers, staff, and school officials who understand the circumstances and challenges TGNC students face and create policies to protect them. Teachers' Knowledge of and Response to SOGI Issues in Schools

As mentioned earlier, though sexuality education is required by multiple laws and policies in Mainland China, the primary focuses are continence and abstinence, and some schools may offer information on sexually transmitted diseases (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO], 2019; Liu, 2019). Sexual health, gender equality, and diversity in sexuality are rarely incorporated. Not only do the students lack knowledge of diversity in sexuality but also the teachers. In Luo’s study (2021), among 24 primary and secondary school teachers, 25% of them reported that they have “a relatively high level of understanding” about SOGI issues. Still, the majority (70.83%) indicated that they “have

50  Shuo “Coco” Wang heard of SOGI but do not know much about them.” All the teachers above 50 in this study believed that there are only two genders, male and female. When asked about their attitude toward homosexuality in students, 62.5% said they wanted to force the students to change their sexual orientation. In another study which included 151 teachers from 30 middle schools in 6 provinces, 32.89% of the teachers believed that “engaging in sexual behaviors with the same sex is wrong,” and 37.58% were not sure about it (UNESCO, 2019). These findings show that there is an urgent need for teachers to increase their knowledge about SOGI issues and sexuality in general. The lack of knowledge and correct understanding of sexual diversity has made them feel reserved in offering help to SOGI students. Luo (2021) stated that only 50% of the teachers expressed a willingness to initiate contact and support for SOGI students, and very few of them felt they knew how to help the students with SOGI issues. These problematic attitudes from the teachers have impacted the students as well. Wei and Liu (2019) found that only 2.9% of the students felt their teachers had access to workshops about addressing and understanding LGBTQ issues. Luo (2021) pointed out that students’ level of understanding about the SOGI population appeared to be much higher than the teachers. When students had questions or concerns regarding gender identity, reaching out to the teachers was rated the lowest solution, which was 4.57%. This shows that, in general, teachers do not have the trust of students in their knowledge and skills regarding SOGI issues. Liu (2019) illustrated that, especially for transgender individuals, their teachers appeared to lack knowledge of gender diversity and lack understanding of gender equality, and some of them even held relatively severe gender stereotypes and discriminatory views. Some transgender individuals stated that their so-called mental health teachers at school were physical education and politics teachers who taught mental health courses and provided psychological consultation to students as their extra duties. LGBTQ+ in School Settings: Hope for the Future

Schools should be the primary source of knowledge and information on the SOGI population and related issues. When SOGI students realize their minority identities, they should be able to have somebody or some space at school to explore their identities and gain support. If the SOGI students do not feel comfortable and safe with the teachers, peers, and the environment, they will not communicate with others or learn about themselves at school. Therefore, teachers should receive education on the LGBTQ+ population, especially the issues, needs, and support they may be able to provide to SOGI students. They also need to learn how to educate the students about the LGBTQ+ population, model how to be an ally, advocate for SOGI students in various ways, and create an inclusive and welcoming space for SOGI students.

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Mainland China  51 Research on SOGI and School Life in Mainland China Since the 1980s, Mainland Chinese researchers have started researching the SOGI population and related issues. However, there has been very limited focus on SOGI youth. Therefore, this section will present studies that focus on the adult population. The major topics have been SOGI self-identity, their coming-out experiences, received parenting style, and family support. Self-Identity and Coming-Out Experiences

Feng (2021) studied the self-identity of homosexual individuals and found that perceived social support, internalized homophobia, and a sense of meaning in life are significant factors that influence the self-identity of homosexuals. The results show that (1) the more perceived social support homosexuals have, the higher self-identity they will gain, (2) reducing internalized homophobia can increase perceived social support in homosexuals, which will enhance their self-identity, and (3) the more perceived social support homosexuals have, the higher sense of meaning in life they will feel, which can increase their self-identity as well. When looking into lesbians and gays, there are differences. Yang (2020) indicated that gays have a higher level of internalized homophobia compared to lesbians. In Mainland Chinese society, when people mention homosexuals, they think of gays rather than lesbians automatically, and lesbians, as a group, are selectively ignored by the public. Yang (2020) explained that the difference could be due to male chauvinism, which has caused females to be put in a vulnerable place in society, but it also brings more strict standards to males who have to deal with more stress. Meanwhile, coming out is a protective factor as well as a risk factor for homosexuals’ self-identity. In Yang’s study (2020), family-oriented identity was rated the highest among internalized homophobia by homosexuals. This means that homosexuals felt a lot of their internalized homophobia came from the worries that their family would be ashamed due to their homosexual identities. Almost all the homosexual participants in this study reported having severe confrontations with their parents after coming out. The longer and more unaccepting the parents were toward their homosexual identity, the higher internalized homophobia and lower self-esteem they felt. Therefore, though coming out may enhance self-identity, it can be a risk factor for homosexuals with high internalized homophobia. For lesbians, the impact of Confucianism on the coming out and communication of minority identity is pronounced. Liu (2012) indicated that because of the emphasis on harmony and filial piety, lesbians might not choose to come out to their families and experience sympathy while just thinking about it. On the one hand, they worry that they cannot persuade their families that they can live a good life as homosexuals due to not having a stable career yet. On the other hand, because they love and respect their families, they do not want to hurt them. Even though many lesbians tend to test their friends and colleagues

52  Shuo “Coco” Wang about their attitudes toward homosexuality before coming out, they still would like to come out to social connections much more than families. Meanwhile, Liu (2012) pointed out that feminism has helped lesbians challenge the traditional values in Confucianism, such as “women need to rely on men,” and encouraged them to be more independent as females. Received Parenting Style and Family Support

Because of the popularity of Confucianism values and family-oriented culture, the relationships between SOGI individuals and their parents and families have been studied more often. Chinese researchers found that family support and resilience were negatively associated with depression in SOGI adults (Wang et al., 2022b). They also mediated the relationship between sexual minority stigma and depression. Meanwhile, it seemed harder for Chinese parents to accept bisexual identity than homosexual identity because parents might feel bisexual individuals could potentially “choose to be heterosexual” (Zhang & Liu, 2020). Therefore, researchers indicated that bisexual individuals felt rejected more often and severely by parents than homosexual individuals and tended to have worse psychological well-being. When looking into the parenting styles of mothers and fathers, they seemed to have differences. For example, Zhang and Liu (2020) pointed out that fathers tended to utilize anger, and mothers tended to utilize overprotection when rejecting their adult children’s LGB identities. However, it is interesting that these two styles had the most negligible impact on LGB adults’ psychological well-being. Researchers conceptualized that it might be because, in Chinese culture, fathers are supposed to be stern, and mothers are meant to be kind. Therefore, the anger fathers use and the overprotection mothers use were perceived as general parenting styles with which LGB adults might not feel concerned. Overprotection from both parents was found to positively impact LGB adults’ psychological well-being (Zhang & Liu, 2020). Researchers explained that some LGB adults had to live a masked life due to the need to hide their identities and feel guilty toward their parents. Though the rejection from parents created lots of stress, these LGB adults could feel a sense of security from the overprotection from their parents. In some cases, they even felt their parents might have higher chances of accepting their sexual minority identities because of the overprotection. In this way, they could feel more hopeful, positively impacting their psychological well-being. Research on the Whole Student (Classroom and School)

In an online survey focusing on college students’ attitudes toward SOGI individuals, though there appeared to be more people who expressed acceptance than rejection, most participants stated that they felt neutral about this population (Silent 8kr, 2022). Compared to bisexual, asexual, and transgender individuals, college students were more accepting of homosexual individuals.

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Mainland China  53 The least accepted identity was bisexual cisgender males, with 17.84% of the participants expressing rejection. Overall, cisgender male college students appeared to have more rejection toward gays, transgenders, and homosexual marriage. Accordingly, LGBTQ+ individuals also reported feeling more welcomed in higher education. For example, transgender individuals indicated that compared to primary and secondary education, they felt the college environment was the most friendly (Beijing LGBT Center & Peking University Department of Sociology, 2017). Another study found that 33.0% of sexual minority individuals reported feeling accepted by their college professors, compared to only 3.9% who felt accepted by their secondary school teachers (UNDP, 2016). These show that higher education institutions provide a more favorable environment for LGBTQ+ individuals. Current Practices in Mainland Chinese Schools As mentioned earlier in this chapter, sexuality education in Mainland Chinese society is still developing. Though it is required for primary and secondary schools to engage in sexuality education, the implementation of this law has varied drastically depending on the school itself because there has been no specific policy or law following it. Therefore, this section will describe the current and limited practices for SOGI children and adolescents in Mainland Chinese schools and the next steps for the future. Encouraging Involvement of Teachers: Training and Attitudes

In the current training curriculum of primary and secondary teachers, there is no specific curriculum on knowledge and issues related to the sexual minority population. The information related to sexuality education, in general, is minimal. For example, some teachers receive training on adolescent physical and psychological development, such as primary and secondary sex characters and how to prevent students from puppy love. In United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization’s report (2019), among 151 teachers, over half of them (57.62%) did not receive any training on sexuality education during pre-service and in-service training. When asked if they felt they had received enough training in adolescent health, 68.75% reported “no.” Among 29 principals, 93.10% indicated that they wanted to improve the training of sexuality education for teachers. Meanwhile, the attitudes teachers have regarding providing sexuality education to students need improvement as well. In Luo’s study (2021), 66.67% of the teachers believed that families should be responsible for sexuality education, 8.33% believed students should teach themselves, and 4.17% believed society should be responsible for it. Only 20.83% of the teachers believed that students should receive formal sexuality education at school. When asked about their willingness to provide sexuality education, 45.83% of the teachers indicated that they would not initiate sexuality education, and 58.33% stated

54  Shuo “Coco” Wang that they did not know how to provide it. In this study, 87.50% of the teachers reported they had not received any training on sexuality, but 70.83% expressed that they hoped the school would provide it. These findings show that teachers have a massive lack of knowledge and skills in sexuality education. This includes general and specific information on SOGI students and issues. As mentioned earlier in this chapter, many teachers lack a correct understanding of the SOGI population and hold stereotypical and discriminatory views toward them. Therefore, providing training on general sexuality education and the SOGI population to teachers is an instant need. This will not only give teachers the knowledge and skills that they feel are needed but also create exposure to sexuality topics and the SOGI population to them. Adequate exposure may bring a more positive and correct understanding of SOGI and sexuality in teachers. Joint Participation: Students and Families

Even though there has been almost no sexuality education including the SOGI population in Mainland Chinese schools, between 2010 and 2017, Beijing Normal University Publishing Group published Cherish Life: Sexual Health Education for Primary School Students, which is a series of formal sexuality education textbooks for students between 6 and 12 years old. Dr. Wenli Liu, a sexuality education professor at Beijing Normal University, wrote them. There are six chapters: (1) family and friends, (2) life and skills, (3) gender and rights, (4) physical growth, (5) sex and healthy behaviors, and (6) sex and reproductive health. From Grades 1 to 6 (primary education), students take Chapters 1 to 3 in the fall semester and 4 to 6 in the spring semester; besides, there are two topics within each chapter (72 topics in total). In the chapter “Family and Friends” in Grade 5, diversity in sexuality is introduced and explained. The focus is on the harm of discrimination and how to deal with it. The goal is for primary school students to learn about SOGI identities, stereotypes, how discrimination hurts people, and how students can reflect, monitor, and adjust their behaviors and thoughts to avoid harming others and themselves. In the chapter “Gender and Rights” in Grade 6, two examples of how homosexual couples form families and live their lives are described. The goal is to help students understand that people have equal rights regardless of their sexual orientation and that people with diverse sexual orientations should be treated equally. Cherish Life was described as “the only sexuality education textbook which has no issues” and proved that it could change how primary school students viewed the SOGI population and related issues. In 2018, Guo and colleagues compared the attitudes toward homosexuality of students who received six full years of sexuality education using Cherish Life and those who did not receive any sexuality education. They found that the students who received sexuality education had higher acceptance and understanding toward the overall homosexual population, gays, and lesbians. This result showed that systematic

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Mainland China  55 sexuality education could improve primary school students’ views and attitudes toward homosexuality. In another study, researchers found that college students who first learned about homosexuality in primary school appeared to have a higher understanding and acceptance of homosexuality than those who first learned about it in middle and high school (Zhang et al., 2008). Li and Liu (2020) pointed out that teaching students about the SOGI population and related knowledge before sexual development could help them avoid the fear of self-identity. These results illustrate that providing sexuality education starting in primary school, especially for the SOGI population, can help students obtain correct information and understanding of SOGI individuals, improve acceptance, and reduce stereotypes and discrimination. However, Cherish Life was taken off the market in January 2019 due to “being too inappropriate for children” (China Youth, 2020). In 2017, a parent of a primary school student in Hangzhou complained that Cherish Life contained too much sexual information, such as the reproductive organs of females and males. In 2019, some self-media criticized Cherish Life for “advertising for homosexuality.” Under pressure, Cherish Life was taken off the market, and the publisher was asked to edit the content to “be appropriate” for primary schoolers. When looking at the public’s attitudes toward the SOGI population, it is not hard to find that older generations appear to have higher rejection, more stereotypes, and discrimination (UNDP, 2016). Compared to the generation after 1990, the generations after 1980 and 1970 held much higher discriminatory and rejected attitudes toward the SOGI population. These are also the parents of current primary and secondary school students. Therefore, the involvement of parents in sexuality education on SOGI is essential. To ensure the students can learn about SOGI-related information, approval from parents seems necessary under the current circumstances. Including parents in sexuality education may not only increase their approval but also help them understand the need for their children to receive such education. Therefore, schools and families may need to work together to ensure students receive proper sexuality education and SOGI-related knowledge. Lack of Psychological Support

According to the “Notice on Improving the Mental Health of Primary and Secondary School Students” by the Beijing Municipal Education Commission, every primary and secondary school should have at least one full-time psychological health teacher (Hao, 2021). However, many schools need more resources to hire and maintain psychological professionals. For example, in Shenzhen, a modern and developed metropolis, there were 1,938 psychological health teachers by May 2022, which set the ratio between students and psychological health teachers as 1,000:1 (Supply of Psychological Application Equipment, 2022). This is a relatively good ratio considering the student population in Mainland China. However, students’ needs still need to be met.

56  Shuo “Coco” Wang The psychological health teacher is not a professional and licensed counselor. The paramount duty of a psychological health teacher is teaching mental health courses, not providing psychological services to students. Though some schools ask psychological health teachers to consult and counsel students with issues, they usually cannot provide any professional services because they do not have professional training. Because psychological health teachers are not licensed counselors, they do not need to protect the confidentiality of students’ issues. Therefore, SOGI students may worry that they will tell their parents, other teachers, or students about their identities and issues. Overall, psychological health teachers in primary and secondary schools may need help to address SOGI students’ needs. However, they may serve as a bridge between SOGI students and the professional mental health services provided in the community. Activities in the Community

In 2022, Wang and colleagues (2022) conducted a study aiming to understand the loneliness level and its impact on Mainland Chinese sexual minority students. They found that sexual minority students with sleep disorders appeared to have a higher level of loneliness. Meanwhile, having people they feel trustworthy to confide their inner thoughts, having good friends, having a high sense of social self-efficacy, and being optimistic had a significant protective effect on loneliness. Therefore, helping sexual minority students to connect socially and gain more quality friendships and other types of relationships may be a valuable way to reduce their loneliness and increase their sense of belonging. As discussed previously in this chapter, though sexuality education has been developing and the focus on the SOGI population has been increasing, schools still have a long way to provide sufficient and comprehensive support to SOGI students. Therefore, services in the community have become a relatively effective and significant option. Some nonprofit LGBTQ+ organizations have been actively creating programs to support the needs of SOGI students. Gay and Lesbian Campus Association of China (https://groups.google. com/g/academicluncheon02/c/0fMKVbo3LLI) was founded in 2006 and aimed to support the Chinese LGBT youth through creating and maintaining the SOGI youth community, educating the teachers and schools about SOGI population and their issues, conducting research, and advertising for SOGI needs and rights in media. They have offices and developed diverse programs in multiple cities. Some programs they have been holding and developing include (1) Gender Education Conference, (2) Teacher’s Training in Gender and Mental Health, (3) Middle School Sexuality Education Package, (4) LGBT-Friendly Teacher Training, (5) LGBT Storytelling Night Event, and (6) Peer Support Group for LGBT Youth. Gender Education Conference provides a space for teachers across the nation to learn about the LGBT population, the struggles of SOGI students, and how to deliver this information to their schools through professional lessons, open discussions, and curriculum

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Mainland China  57 adjustment. LGBT-Friendly Teacher Training is a program aiming to provide teachers with a series of sexuality and SOGI-specific education to help them effectively recognize the needs of SOGI students and how to support them with the available resources. LGBT Storytelling Night Event and Peer Support Group for LGBT Youth are social activities for students to meet each other, practice social skills, connect with others with similar experiences, and create a community for themselves. The Beijing LGBT Center was founded in 2008 and has focused on improving sexual minority individuals’ living situations in Mainland China. Since 2012, they have created a counseling program that provides individual and group counseling to sexual minority individuals with affordable prices and sliding scales. They also offer “Be Together Support Groups,” which are led by social workers and therapists. There are approximately 1,500 LGBT+ individuals receiving counseling services through this program yearly. Meanwhile, they have provided more than 20 workshops to help therapists become LGBT+-friendly providers. In 2016, they led the first-ever discussion forum on the current situation and development of LGBT+-friendly therapists at a national psychological conference. The transgender program started in 2017 and has offered a national crisis line for transgender individuals, transgender leadership training, and a transgender social support system (including medical, law, social work, and mental health support). Trueself (https://www.chuse8.com/home/index/index.html), formerly known as PFLAG China, is the first nonprofit organization founded by a sexual minority individual and an LGBT+ family member in Mainland China. Since 2008, Trueself has been working on resolving parents’ worries and concerns about their LGBT+ children through the sharing of personal stories and peer-to-peer communications on the helpline, improving parents’ acceptance and understanding of the LGBT+ community through training programs, and training parents to become volunteers to help and support other families (Trueself, n.d.). Since 2009, they have held 12 Family Sharing National Conferences with more than 8,000 LGBT+ individuals, their families, and friends attending. Trueself has connected with more than 30 higher education institutions and presented over 50 lectures on LGBT+ issues. The Trueself National Helpline opened in February 2012, and it started with 15 parent volunteers, 13 therapists, and one psychological consultation organization. By January 2020, they had received more than 20,000 calls. By October 2021, Trueself had more than 2,000 parent volunteers (Huang, 2021). The founder, A. Qiang, said that many parent volunteers used to be help-seekers who later became helpers to support other LGBT+ individuals and their families and even try to voice their needs to change society. The local government and public hospitals are trying to provide support as well. The Tongzhou government has established a mental health station for minors, which consists of 2 supervisors, 26 second-degree therapists, 7 third-degree therapists, 4 teachers with psychological support experience, 2 teachers with crisis line experiences, and multiple volunteers (Zhang, 2022). They aim to

58  Shuo “Coco” Wang provide professional long-term counseling services to primary and secondary school students. The Children’s Hospital of Fudan University opened the first Transgender Children and Adolescent Multidisciplinary Clinic in Mainland China. They utilize professional evaluation, diagnosis, and intervention to reduce negative emotions, improve family relationships, and increase self-identity and acceptance in transgender youth (Department of Endocrine Genetics and Metabolism, 2021). The disciplines involved in the clinic are endocrine genetics and metabolism, psychology, urology, and social work. Future Challenges

In order to promote a robust support system for SOGI students, it is imperative to require formal sexuality education in pre-service and in-service teachers’ training programs. When teachers become educated about sexuality and its diversity, they can become the venue to deliver correct knowledge on sexuality and foster an equal perspective of diversity in students. Learning from previous experiences, it is essential to recognize parents’ attitudes and increase their involvement in promoting and implementing sexuality education. With such limited resources, schools may need to consider cooperating with LGBTQ+ organizations in the community, which have developed diverse programs to improve knowledge in students, teachers, and parents, as well as in different contexts, such as schools, universities, and formal and informal social groups. With the resources and cooperation from different parties, schools may become an inclusive and welcoming space for SOGI students and any other minority students. References Academy of Contemporary China and World Studies. (2021). Ethnic groups with crossstage development. http://keywords.china.org.cn/2021-01/11/content_77102822.html American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596 Bai, Y. S. (2021). 女同性恋的出柜过程: 一项叙事研究 [The coming-out process of lesbians: A narrative study] [Master thesis, Central China Normal University]. China Academic Journal Electronic Publishing House. Beijing LGBT Center & Peking University Department of Sociology. (2017). 2017 Chinese transgender population general survey report: Transgender and gender-nonconforming people. https://www.rainbowun.org/uploadfile/2019/0530/20190530115849390.pdf Chen, D. R., Ying, J. F., Zhou, X. L., Wu, H. J., & You, J. N. (2021, October 31). Sexual minority stigma and non-suicidal self-injury among LGB populations: A serial mediation model [Paper presentation]. The 23rd National Academic Conference of Psychology, Huhehaote, Neimenggu, China. China Daily. (2021, November 1). Survey indicated the prevalence of bullying in schools was 32.4 percent. https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1715187920745583457&wfr=spider&for=pc China Youth. (2020, January 19). Inappropriate and misleading? This sexuality education textbook faces “very difficult situation.” https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1656123451 122911494&wfr=spider&for=pc

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Mainland China  59 Chinese homosexual groups’ WeChat accounts were blocked and triggered protests: We are all “unnamed” public accounts. (2021, July 9). BBC News Chinese. Retrieved March 4, 2022, from https://www.bbc.com/zhongwen/simp/chinese-news-57763594 Chinese Society of Psychiatry. (2001). Chinese classification of mental disorder (3rd ed.). http://www.jhak.com/uploads/soft/201410/2_05151719.pdf Department of Endocrine Genetics and Metabolism. (2021, November 9). The Department of Pediatrics of Fudan University opened the first multidisciplinary clinic for transgender children and adolescents in China. Children’s Hospital of Fudan University. https://ch.shmu.edu.cn/news/content/id/492/pid/13742.html Dong, X. G. (2009). 变性手术服务法律规制研究 [Research on sex-change surgery service regulation] [Master thesis, Chongqing University]. China Academic Journal Electronic Publishing House. Feng, X. Y. (2021). Analysis of the factors influencing the self identity of homosexual groups in China [Master’s thesis, Guangzhou University]. Chinese Master’s Theses Full-Text Database, Philosophy and Humanities Sciences. Fu, W. Q., & Liu, F. Y. (2022). Problematic behaviors and impacting factors of left-behind children in China: Evidence from a systematic review. Children’s Study, 9(2022), 40–48. Gan, L., Liu, X. H., & Peng, Z. (2020). General mental health issues and interventions of students in elementary, middle and high schools. Mental Health Education, 12A(2020), 24–25. Gao, P. P., Chen, T. T., Gao, Y., Liu, Y. X., Zhang, H. Y., & Cai, Y. (2021). 跨性别女性 艾滋病病毒感染状况及其传播风险研究进展 [Research progress about HIV infection status and transmission risk among transgender]. Health Education and Health Promotion, 16(2), 159–164. https://doi.org/10.16117/j.cnki.31-1974/r.202102159 Guo, R. (2016, April 19). The first gay marriage lawsuit was lost: How long does homosexual marriage need to wait for legalization in China? Phoenix TV. https://news. ifeng.com/a/20160419/48511752_0.shtml Hao, Y. R. (2021, October 11). Beijing: Primary and secondary schools should have at least one full-time psychological health teacher. Beijing Daily. http://www.gov.cn/ xinwen/2021-10/11/content_5641792.htm Huang, C. S., Yan, W. H., Wei, W., Chen, L., & Jin, R. S. (2022). The impact of family on intimate relationships among Chinese urban young adults: The moderation role of sexual orientation. Chinese Journal of Human Sexuality, 31(1), 157–160. https:// doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1672-1993.2022.01.039 Huang, L. L. (2021, October 13). On a mission to promote family harmony among sexual minorities: Interview with Hu Zhijun, founder of outstanding partners. UN News. https://news.un.org/zh/story/2021/10/1090212 Improve the living conditions of LGBT with joint efforts of families and friends. (n.d.). Trueself. Retrieved March 4, 2022, from https://www.chuse8.com/home/about/ index.html Li, C. Y. (2012, May 21–24). 佛教视野中的同性爱 [Homosexual affection in the field of view of Buddhism] [Paper presentation]. Gender Diversity: Theory and Practice Conference, Beijing, China. Li, J. Y., & Liu, W. L. (2020). Sexual minority population and diverse sexuality education. Jiangsu Education, 2020(56), 23–28. Li, S. (2021). 中国LGBT历史考察与评析(1949年前) [The investigation, evaluation and analysis of Chinese LGBT history (prior to 1949)]. Journal of Heilongjiang Administrative Cadre College of Politics and Law, 2021(2), 6–13. https://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/detail.

60  Shuo “Coco” Wang aspx?dbcode=CJFD&dbname=CJFDLAST2021&ffilenam=LGLX202102002&uni platform=NZKPT&v=D34IJsOTqJ9C9QzgMn3FultFuSFultFuSC9xiapPjEivHOZx mioAIvuj0pNOX0xq Li, Y. (2010). 性别变更的法律问题研究 [Research on legal issues in gender changes] [Doctoral dissertation, Fudan University]. China Academic Journal Electronic Publishing House. Liu, C. (2020, November 14). The 11 cross-stage ethnic groups and ethnic groups with small population in Yunnan Province have been entirely lifted out of poverty. Xinhua News Agency. http://www.gov.cn/xinwen/2020-11/14/content_5561523.htm Liu, T. T. (2012). Self-identity of young lesbians. The Chinese Journal of Human Sexuality, 21(12), 80–87. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1672-1993.2012.12.025 Liu, X. N. (2019). The status and legal countermeasures of transgender people’s right to education in China. In L. W. Wang & X. N. Liu (Eds.), Anti-Discrimination Law Review No. 6 (pp. 225–278). Social Sciences Academic Press (China): Beijing, China. Liu, X. Q., Peng, C., Huang, Y. X., Yang, M. S., Wen, L. H., Qiu, X. Y., & Wang, Z. (2020). Association between sexual orientation and school bullying behaviors among senior high school students. Chinese Journal of Public Health, 36(6), 880–883. https://www.zgggws.com/en/article/doi/10.11847/zgggws1122177 Liu, Y., Xin, Y., Qi, J., & Pan, B. L. (2021). 中国跨性别人群医疗现状的调查及分析 [The current status of transgender medical care in Chinese population: Analysis from a national survey]. Chinese Journal of Human Sexuality, 30(6), 154–157. https://doi. org/10.3969/j.issn.1672-1993.2021.06.048 Luo, X. Y. (2021). Research on gender education in primary and secondary schools (Publication No. G637.90) [Master’ thesis, Central China Normal University]. Social Science Journal. Li, H., & Wang, L. B. (2019). A survey study of the transgender rights dilemma in China. China Health Law, 27(1), 14–34. Li, Y. H., & Zheng, H. X. (2013). 公众对同性恋的态度及影响因素 [The public attitude and influential factors towards homosexuality]. Journal of South China Normal University (Social Science Edition), 2013(6), 31–36. https://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/detail. aspx?dbcode=CJFD&dbname=CJFDHIS2&filename=HNSB201306005& uniplatform=NZKPT&v=EBsgO6Y66oFN6n5t7w149TxsQjwGjOvA34sq-nN2OD kvzZWA_NaOTuW_PEUQ4M5G Ministry of Civil Affairs of the People’s Republic of China. (2022). Representative Zhang Guo Xin: It is suggested to introduce targeted pension policies for Lost-OnlyChild families. https://mzzt.mca.gov.cn/article/zt_2022lh/dbwyhmz/rddb/202203/ 20220300040178.shtml Nanjing Notary Public Office. (2019). Notary of guardianship by conduct: Building a bridge of love for LGBT community. https://page.om.qq.com/page/OUHxt6XA_ byHMo9z_y96WLJQ0 National Bureau of Statistics of China. (2015). 2015.05: A study on the family dynamics of lost-only-child women in China. http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjzs/tjsj/tjcb/dysj/201505/ t20150528_1111157.html National Bureau of Statistics of China. (2021). The seventh national census. http:// www.gov.cn/guoqing/2021-05/13/content_5606149.htm National Health Commission of the People’s Republic of China. (2017). Code for technical management of gender reassignment. https://www.wiki8.cn/xingbiezhongzhi jishuguanliguifan.EF.BC.882017nianban.EF.BC.89_160138/

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Mainland China  61 National People’s Congress. (2018). Constitution of the People’s Republic of China (2018 amendment). https://www.lawinfochina.com/display.aspx?id=27574&lib= law&SearchKeyword=&SearchCKeyword= National People’s Congress. (2020). Civil code of the People’s Republic of China. http:// www.npc.gov.cn/npc/c30834/202006/75ba6483b8344591abd07917e1d25cc8.shtml National Working Committee on Children and Women under State Council. (2021). China children’s development programme (2021–2030). https://www.nwccw.gov. cn/2021-09/27/content_295247.htm Peng, T. X. (2014). The reason and effect of Chinese homosexual choosing marriage of convenience. The Chinese Journal of Human Sexuality, 23(8), 97–99. https://doi. org/10.3969/j.issn.1672-1993.2014.08.035 Quesada, J. M. O. (2018). Interpreting realities: Same-sex oriented Chinese in cooperative marriage, a symbiosis of subjective and collective meanings [Master thesis, Xiamen University]. China Academic Journal Electronic Publishing House. Recording civic action in China: Chinese NGO web archiving project. (n.d.). Stanford Libraries. Retrieved March 4, 2022, from https://exhibits.stanford.edu/chinese-ngos/ browse/lgbt?per_page=96&sort=pub_year_isi+asc%2C+title_sort+asc ShanghaiPRIDE. (n.d.). Shanghai Pride. Retrieved March 3, 2022, from https://shpride. com/about/ Shi, H. (2021, October 21). Survey shows 40% of 100,000 primary and secondary school students have psychological problems. Shangyou News. https://cq.sina.cn/ news/2021-12-21/detail-ikyamrmz0248927.d.html Sichuan Sex Sociology and Sex Education Research Center. (2017). The historical review and development of adolescent sex education in China. Chengdu Technological University. https://xjyzx.cdtu.edu.cn/info/1031/1345.htm Silent 8kr. (2022, February 8). The 2021 Chinese contemporary college students knowledge and sexual attitudes survey report: Sexual attitude. Zhi Hu. https://zhuanlan. zhihu.com/p/464257658 Song, W., Zhen, Z. A., Li, H. H., Bao, J. M., & Sun, F. (2021). Sexual orientation and psychological crisis among adolescent in China: The mediating effect of perceived discrimination. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 29(1), 33–38. https://doi. org/10.16128/j.cnki.1005-3611.2021.01.007 Sun, G. P. (2020). 性别认同和性别表达歧视之解决: 从我国首例跨性别歧视案说起 [How to solve discrimination of gender identity and gender expression in employment: Starting from the first case of discrimination of transsexual in Mainland China]. Journal of Guizhou Provincial Party School, 2020(1), 69–80. https://doi. org/10.16436/j.cnki.52-5023/d.2020.01.009 Supply of Psychological Application Equipment. (2022, May 19). With nearly 2,000 full-time psychological health teachers and a teacher-student ratio of 1,000:1, psychological education in primary and secondary schools in Shenzhen is at the forefront. Zhi Hu. https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/516850472 Tcheng, J. (2017, July 10). Chinese court denied conversion therapy. Human Rights Watch. https://www.hrw.org/zh-hans/news/2017/07/10/306402 The Ministry of Civil Affairs. (2018). The number of left-behind children in rural areas dropped by 22.7% over the past two years to 6.97 million. http://www.xinhuanet.com/ politics/2018-10/30/c_1123634905.htm The People’s Republic of China State Bureau of Religious Affairs. (2013). An overview of the religions in China. http://www.gov.cn/test/2005-06/22/content_8406.htm

62  Shuo “Coco” Wang The State Council Information Office of the People’s Republic of China. (2009, September 27). China’s ethnic policy and common prosperity and development of all ethnic groups [Press release]. http://www.gov.cn/zwgk/2009-09/27/content_1427930.htm The State Council Information Office of the People’s Republic of China. (2018, April 3). China’s policies and practices on protecting freedom of religious belief [Press release]. http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/2018-04/03/content_5279419.htm The United Nations Development Programme. (2016). Being LGBTI in China: A national survey on social attitudes towards sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression. https://www.cn.undp.org/content/china/zh/home/library/democratic_ governance/being-lgbt-in-china.html The United Nations Development Programme. (2018). Legal gender recognition in China: A legal and policy review. https://www.undp.org/china/publications/legalgender-recognition-china-legal-and-policy-review#:~:text=The%20Legal%20 Gender%20Recognition%20in%20China%3A%20A%20Legal,Bangladesh%2C% 20China%2C%20India%2C%20Nepal%2C%20Pakistan%2C%20Philippines%20 and%20Thaila UCLA Williams Institute. (2021). Public opinion of transgender rights: In China. https:// williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Public-Opinion-Trans-ChinaEnglish-Jun-2021.pdf United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2019). Implementation of sexuality education in middle schools in China. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ ark:/48223/pf0000266006 Wang, D. N., & Feng, Y. (2019, August 1). I provided my homosexual partner the notary of guardianship of conduct: They are afraid that no one can sign for surgeries, and the notary is utilized as a marriage certificate. Sohu. https://www.sohu. com/a/330829888_120146415 Wang, J., Xu, X., Tan, W., Huang, Q., & Sun, Y. (2022a). A study on the level of loneliness and its influencing factors among the sexual minorities among Chinese students. Psychologies, 1(17), 20–24. https://doi.org/10.19738/j.cnki.psy.2022.01.008 Wang, X. D., Li, L., Zhang, G. B., Zhou, X. Y., & Mao, Z. (2021). 昆明市男男性行为 人群中跨性别者性病艾滋病知识及高危行为调查 [STD/AIDS knowledge and highrisk behaviors among transgender in MSM in Kunming]. Chinese Journal of Human Sexuality, 30(12), 153–156. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1672-1993.2021.12.046 Wang, Y., Lao, C. K., Wang, Q., & Zhou, G. (2022b). The impact of sexual minority stigma on depression: The roles of resilience and family support. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 19, 442–452. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-021-00558-x Wei C., & Liu, W. (2019). Coming out in Mainland China: A national survey of LGBTQ students. Journal of LGBT Youth, 16(2), 192–219. https://doi.org/10.108 0/19361653.2019.1565795 What is the mental health status of transgender middle school students in China? (2020). Sohu. https://www.sohu.com/a/431442940_120051629 World Health Organization. (2019). International statistical classification of disease and related health problems (11th ed.). http://icd.who.int/ Xia, N., & Liu, A. Z. (2021). 跨性别者的心理健康问题(综述) [A review of mental health in transgender people]. Chinese Mental Health Journal, 35(3), 231–235. https:// doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1000-6729.2021.03.010 Xu, L. L., & Bao, Y. Y. (2019). Study on the influence of traditional Confucianism on the social attitude of homosexuality in contemporary China. Chinese Medical Ethics, 32(06), 733–736. https://doi.org/10.12026/j.issn.1001-8565.2019.06.10

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Mainland China  63 Xu, X. F., & Luo, G. L. (2014). Investigation and analysis of sex education in primary and secondary schools in West China: A case study of 12 primary and secondary schools in Zunyi. Mental Health Education in Primary and Secondary School, 13(2014), 17–19. Xue, J., & Luo, Haixia. (2016, October 23). A survey by the Municipal Institute of Education shows that there are hidden concerns about the natural health of elementary, middle and high schools. Chongqing Shi Bao. https://www.sohu.com/a/116937012_384655 Yang, H. B. (2014). 云南“直过民族”人文贫困现状研究 [The humanistic poverty in cross-stage ethnic groups in Yunnan Province]. Journal of Xingtai University, 29(02), 19–32. https://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/detail.aspx?dbcode=CJFD&dbname=CJFD 2014&filename=XTSF201402006&uniplatform=NZKPT&v=pkW2dlwK9h_ynw dr-YqJ7HelyRkMXBycfS1CBqz8oG_TcUmA7HRvLgvnR8GXr9Yw Yang, H. J. (2020). 内化同性恋嫌恶及保护性因素探究 [The exploration of internalized homophobia and protective factors] [Master thesis, Shanghai Normal University]. China Academic Journal Electronic Publishing House. Yunnan Education Department. (2017, October 12). Yunnan Province promotes education improvement in cross-stage ethnic groups [Press release]. http://www.moe.gov.cn/ jyb_xwfb/s6192/s222/moe_1757/201710/t20171012_316118.html Zeng, H. G., Lin, X. R., Zhou, F. Z., & Luo, C. X. (n.d.). 30th anniversary of depathologizing homosexuality: The online life situation for gays in contemporary China. https://regres.github.io/WebDemo/GayOnTheInternet.html Zhang, H., Sun, T. T., & Wang, P. (2008). College students’ understanding and attitudes toward homosexuality. Chinese Journal of Human Sexuality, 2008(9), 9–12. Zhang, L. (2022, March 2). All primary and secondary schools in Tongzhou have psychological teachers. Beijing Municipal Administrative Center. https://bj.bjd.com. cn/5b165687a010550e5ddc0e6a/contentShare/5b16573ae4b02a9fe2d558f9/AP621e f07ee4b054a95574e871.html Zhang, M., Cao, L., Hu R., & Luo, L. (2022). 321名男男同性 HIV 感染者性行为特征 分析 [Sexual behavioral characters of 321 HIV – positive MSM in Wuhan Jingyingtan Hospital]. Journal of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, 33(2), 154–157. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1006-2483.2022.02.035 Zhang, N., & Zhang, J. (2010). The impact of traditional ethic on the phenomenon of homosexuality in Chinese and Western history. Journal of Heilongjiang College of Education, 29(03), 182–183. https://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/detail.aspx?dbcode= CJFD&dbname=CJFD2010&filename=HLJB201003074&uniplatform=NZ KPT&v=iFTyjiMh2Jg0HCMrqBO6ZI10uzxGicPyF8qX5pDcHR14mfc03hQB Cv8rLqApNkSC Zhang, Y. W., & Liu, T. (2020). The effects of negative parenting styles on the mental health of sexual minorities in China: Based on the Bifactor model. Journal of Psychological Science, 43(5), 1103–1110. https://doi.org/10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20200511 Zhu, C. X., Chang, M., Zhou, Y., Rong, C., Fan, H., He, D., Zheng, W., & Sun, D. F. (2018). Status and influencing factors of social support among Chinese people bereaved of their only child. Chinese General Practice, 21(16), 1938–1943. https://doi. org/1006-2483.2022.02.035

4

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and School Life in South Korea Eunhui Yoon and SungWon Yoon-Lee

Introduction When a multicultural society is defined as a society that is ethnically, racially, and culturally diverse, and in which many different lifestyles exist, South Korea is already a multicultural society. Regardless of nationality, ethnicity, race, and language diversity due to the influx of migrant workers, marriage migrants, study abroad migrants, North Korean defectors, and overseas migrants, there are other forms of diversities based on age, gender identity/expression, sexual/ affectional orientation, disability, socioeconomic background, religion, and others that have always coexisted in Korean society. However, the fact that diverse cultures coexist in society does not mean that diversity and minorities, especially, sexual and gender minorities are respected. The sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) human rights movement has been active since the 1990s, and the SOGI issue has come to the fore through various activities and research, but the enactment of antidiscrimination laws has repeatedly failed and the Article 92-6 Military Criminal Act stipulates that sexual intercourse between men is illegal. The legal systems need to be much improved, such as the lack of laws on the right to form a family of SOGI minority people through civil union and same-sex marriage legislation. Even from an international point of view, South Korean society’s acceptance of SOGI individuals is very low. According to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), South Korean society’s acceptance of sexual minorities is similar to that of Turkey, Lithuania, and Latvia. It ranks fifth from the bottom after Estonia (OECD, 2019). In addition, by using the score sheet used by the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association European branch (2020), the existence of laws and policies related to SOGI were summarized and calculated. South Korea’s SOGI equality index in 2019 was 8.08%, which is significantly lower compared to most European countries. When evaluated based on the same criteria, Russia outperformed Korea at 10.20% in 2019, and countries such as Malta (90.5%), Belgium (74.08%), and France (63%) are located in the upper ranks (Korean Society of Law and Policy on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity [SOGILAW], 2020). DOI: 10.4324/9781003430414-4

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in South Korea  65 SOGI Minority and South Korean Society Historical Background

In Korean history, the existence of SOGI minority people, such as gay/lesbian, bisexuals, transgender, and intersex, is confirmed through various channels such as history books, folk tales, and literary works, and historical figures can be traced back to Hyegong (惠恭王, 758–780), the 36th king of the Silla Dynasty. In addition to appearing as an anecdote of a specific person, it appears in various ways beyond region and generation, such as being referred to as a single sexual behavior and culture without being considered a sexual or gender identity, and it can be seen that it was not particularly subject to moral judgment and regulation in the cultural background at the time. This traditional idea in Korea took on a new aspect as Western cultures, including Christian culture and homophobia, flowed in around the Japanese colonial era, and the collective identity of SOGI minority people began to emerge as negative views and oppression against them intensified (Solidarity for LGBT Human Rights of Korea, 2003). Psychopathological approaches to SOGI issues were unavoidable, with the introduction and application of the fourth edition of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) in 1938, the Japanese colonial era, the addition of mental disorders from ICD-6, and the “homosexuality” diagnosis together applied as the second edition of Korean Standard Classification of Diseases (KCD; Economic Planning Board, 1979). As “homosexuality” was deleted from ICD-10 in 1990, it was deleted from KCD-3, a translation for that in 1995, and it was stated that a specific sexual orientation itself cannot be viewed as a mental disorder (Statistics Korea, 1995). Attempts have been made to specify and protect SOGI rights in human rights laws and policies at the national level. Starting with a bill submitted by the Ministry of Justice in 2007 at the recommendation of the National Human Rights Commission of Korea (NHRCK) to enact antidiscrimination law. The antidiscrimination law was proposed several times by lawmakers but remained in limbo. They have justified their actions by citing the opposition from the conservative Christian community to include SOGI in the antidiscrimination list. The 2007–2011 National Human Rights Plans of Action (NAP) specified sexual minorities along with women, children and adolescents, the disabled, the elderly, foreigners, overseas Koreans, refugees, and North Korean defectors in the list of social minorities, mentioning “modification and supplementation of curriculum and educational materials related to SOGI” in the implementation tasks and measures. Specifically, it was said, “In the curriculum and its materials implemented from 2007, contents related to hatred or prejudice against specific sexual orientation should be reviewed overall and deleted or corrected,” some of which was implemented. However, in the second NAP (2012–2016), although sexual minorities were specified in the social minority list, there were no specific task plans related to SOGI, and in the third NAP (2017–2021), sexual minorities were deleted from the list, showing a decline in government policy.

66  Eunhui Yoon and SungWon Yoon-Lee The SOGI issues began to emerge as a political issue in the 19th presidential election in 2017. Presidential candidates from the ruling and opposition parties asked their opponents whether they were for or against homosexuality in presidential debates. In a 2020 survey conducted by the NHRCK, 88.5% of the people said they were in favor of enacting the antidiscrimination law. In June 2021, a total of 100,000 people agreed and urged the enactment of the antidiscrimination law through a national petition. Nevertheless, when asked about the enactment of the antidiscrimination law in the 20th presidential election in 2022, presidential candidates from the ruling and opposition parties answered, “Social consensus should precede,” and, “It is difficult due to social controversy.” Sexual Orientation: Current Social Situation

As “homosexuality” was deleted from ICD-10 in 1990, the diagnosis was deleted from KCD-3 in 1995 and now no specific sexual orientation is considered a mental disorder. However, the ICD-10 states, “F66: Psychological and Behavioral Disorders Associated with sexual development and orientation” remains (Statistics Korea, 1995). KCD-8, which will be used from 2021 to 2025 is based on ICD-10 and includes F66, is being misused by some conservative Christian groups in Korea as evidence of a pathological approach to “homosexuality.” The updated edition of ICD-11 was published in 2022, and the KCD-9 will not be updated again until 2025. Under the Constitution, South Korea does not have a sodomy law that criminalizes oral or anal sex between consenting adults, which historically was primarily used against lesbians and gay men. Under the Military Criminal Act, however, a military person who committed “anal sex or other disgraceful conduct” on other military people shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than two years due to Article 92-6. There has been a total of three constitutionality reviews for Article 92-6 of the Military Criminal Act in 2002, 2011, and 2016, and a fourth unconstitutional recommendation is currently underway. Since South Korea has maintained a conscription system since the Korean War, most Koreans that are assigned male at birth have a duty to serve in the military and should work as a soldier in that environment for about two or three years of their lives. In 2017, the Korean Army tried to hunt down gay soldiers based on Article 92-6 of the Military Criminal Act. The Republic of Korea (ROK) Army Central Investigation Department accessed the gay dating app and searched for users who belonged to the military. The investigators tracked records of the personal phone use, contacts, and social media accounts of the targeted individuals and then search for more possible targets. During the investigation, the investigators asked insulting questions, including about body postures during sexual intercourse, of the soldiers (Amnesty International, 2019). According to a survey conducted by the NHRCK (2014), many SOGI minority soldiers reported their experience of discrimination in the military, such as being classified as a “maladjusted soldier” as well as being a target of sexual harassment and sexual violence. In addition to the

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in South Korea  67 military, the survey confirmed discrimination against SOGI minority people in various social areas, a total of 44.8% of SOGI minority respondents experienced discrimination or harassment at work, such as bullying, intimidation, repetitive fault-finding, blaming, taunting, damaging their belongings, physical violence, sexual harassment, and sexual assault. To date, South Korea has not legally recognized the rights of partners in same-sex relationships. The court dismissed the first same-sex marriage suit in 2016, stating that marriage is interpreted as being a union based on the love of a man and woman with the purpose of a lifetime of cohabitation, which cannot be expanded to a union based on the love of two individuals, regardless of sex, and it is a matter to be decided by the legislature, not by the judiciary. However, the dependent status of same-sex spouses of US military personnel was recognized by the Korean government under the ROK-US Status of Forces Agreement (SOGILAW, 2017). In the 2021 National Health Insurance suit against the dependent qualifications of same-sex spouses, the court did not recognize same-sex relations as a marriage. Also, a draft of the Life Partnership Act was prepared during the 19th National Assembly in 2014; however, it was not even proposed due to opposition from conservative organizations (SOGILAW, 2016). Gender Identity: Current Social Situation

South Korea gives all citizens a resident registration number that represents their legal gender, which is used for identification in private and public areas such as admission, employment, voting, etc. Therefore, in this process, legal gender is revealed regardless of one’s will. Legal gender acts as a barrier for many transgender and gender-diverse/-expansive people to utilize resources and services necessary in daily life, such as experiencing unwanted disclosure or being exposed to discrimination and violence. According to a survey of NHRCK in 2021, 35.8% of transgender respondents reported that they had given up at least one of their daily tasks due to fear of being treated unfairly concerning their transgender identity in instances where they were required to present ID cards or resident registration numbers, including medical service use, age verification, insurance subscriptions, banking, etc. In South Korea, most public toilets are gender segregated, so toilet use issues are an important agenda in the human rights of transgender and gender-diverse/-expansive people. In the NHRCK 2021 survey, 40.9% of respondents said they used facilities of a different gender from their gender identity for fear of unfair treatment or unpleasant attention when using gender-segregated public toilets. In addition, 39.2% of them said they avoided drinking or eating to avoid going to the bathroom, and 36% reported that they had given up using the bathroom for that fear. Of the respondents, 16.5% of them used the bathroom and heard insulting remarks or unnecessary questions, and 12.2% of them were reported to have been restrained from using the bathroom.

68  Eunhui Yoon and SungWon Yoon-Lee A gender recognition law was drafted in 2002 and then redrafted again in 2006, but it was ultimately canceled. Since 2006, the Supreme Court has established rules for legal gender recognition, but these are not laws and are highly restrictive. According to the requirements, the person eligible for legal gender change will be a nonmarried adult without legally minor children who has been diagnosed with transsexualism, received psychiatric/hormone therapy, and undergone sterilization surgeries (Rainbow Action Against Sexual Minority Discrimination, 2017). Medical transitioning services are available in a few hospitals centered in the metropolitan area. South Korea has national health insurance coverage, but the services for gender transition are not covered by national health insurance at all. SOGI Minority Community Development and Advocacy

Various studies have been conducted in areas such as psychology, counseling, social work, and public health, and there are several large-scale nationwide projects conducted by non-government organizations and/or non-profit organizations targeting SOGI minority communities, but statistics at the national level do not yet exist. Korean SOGI minority communities developed around certain areas such as Jongno-gu, Mapo-gu, and Itaewon in Seoul, which grew more rapidly through cyberspace in the 1990s, leading to the emergence of independent Internet websites for homosexuals (Kwon Kim & Cho, 2010). During this period, the government attempted to censor and regulate content on the Internet. In 2000, the Information and Communications Ethics Committee under the Ministry of Information and Communications decided Exzone, the largest site for homosexuals at the time, was a “media product harmful to youth.” Based on this, the Government Youth Commission attempted to regulate homosexuals’ websites to block youth access and mark “media product harmful to youth” while including “homosexuality” as a criterion for deliberation on “media product harmful to youth” in Article 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the Youth Protection Act (Chingusai, 2016, May 20). Exzone confronted gay and lesbian human rights organizations, and as a result, the criteria were deleted in 2004 through the recommendation of the NHRCK, which was the first important moment in the history of SOGI rights (Kwon Kim & Cho, 2010). The advocacy activities of SOGI rights in South Korea began in the 1990s, initiated with Ch’odonghoe, the first lesbian and gay organization in South Korea established in 1993, which broke up into Chingusai, a gay men’s organization, and KiriKiri, a lesbian organization in 1994. In addition, starting with Yonsei University’s Come Together in 1995, many gay and lesbian university groups appeared in places such as Maum 001 of Seoul National University, and the SOGI rights movement began to become visible. In 2000, the first queer culture festival was held in Seoul and the pride parade began. Since then, it has been planned and underway in Daegu, Busan, Jeonju, Jeju, Incheon, and other regions across the country. In 2007, human rights groups

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in South Korea  69 and activists formed the Emergency Coalition of South Korea LGBT Rights Groups Against Homophobia and the Distorted Anti-Discrimination Bill in response to the Ministry of Justice’s attempt to remove seven items from the draft’s reasons for antidiscrimination, including SOGI. After this experience, SOGI minority organizations and activists, who felt the need for solidarity, organized a coalition, the Rainbow Action Against Sexual Minority Discrimination of Korea, which has been the basis of the Korean SOGI rights movement. Various Issues in Schools in South Korea Lack of School Counselors

In South Korea, school systems have three levels: six years of elementary school, three years of middle school, and three years of high school. Kindergarten and early childhood education are not mandatory. Kim et al. (2018) reviewed and calculated the ratio of school counselors per school by using data from 2015. In 2015, there were 39 school counselors working out of 4,165 elementary schools (0.94%), 839 school counselors working out of 2,518 middle schools (33.32%), and 443 school counselors worked out of 1,739 high schools (25.47%) in South Korea (Kim et al., 2018). This means that in 2015 less than 1% of elementary schools had a school counselor, 33.42% of middle schools had a school counselor, and less than 30% of high schools had a school counselor. As of 2018, the number of school counselors has increased by the government’s efforts (Kim, 2021). In 2020, the number of school counselors increased to 866 for elementary schools, 1,676 for middle schools, and 1,229 for high schools, but it is still 13.3% of elementary schools, 46.0% of middle schools, and 47.2% of high schools (Kim, 2021). The needs of increasing numbers of school counselors and their burnout issues have been discussed by many researchers (Heo et al., 2020; Kim, 2021; Kim et al., 2018; Lee et al., 2008; Park & Lim, 2014). Various Issues in School Counseling

According to the statistics (The Ministry of Education & The Office of EunHye Yoo, member of the National Assembly, 2016, as cited in Kim, 2021), 816,041 cases were reported in Korean School Counseling System in 2016. The highest number of cases were mental health issues (n = 193,072), academic achievement and career development were next (n = 170,528), and the third highest issue was misbehaviors and juvenile delinquency (n = 124,671). In the same statistics, personal characteristics (n = 106,414) and interpersonal relationships (n = 106,414) were also highly ranked, and many students were referred to the school counseling systems due to sexuality issues (n = 22,727) (The Ministry of Education & The Office of EunHye Yoo, member of the National Assembly, 2016, as cited in Kim, 2021).

70  Eunhui Yoon and SungWon Yoon-Lee Kim et al. (2018) focused on school violence issues, then reviewed the incident report of school violence nationwide from 2012 to 2015 data. In 2015, there were 2,129 incidents reported in elementary schools, 7,955 incidents were reported in middle schools, and 4,316 incidents were reported in high schools. At the elementary school level, physical violence was the most common issue (n = 702), followed by defamation and insult (n = 195), physical wound due to violence (n = 173), cyber violence (n = 164), and then bullying (alienating) (n = 136). In middle schools, physical violence was distinctively high (n = 5,081), cyber violence (n = 618), defamation and insult (n = 590), and threatening (n = 481) were next. And in high schools, physical violence was the most prevalent issue (n = 2,806), followed by defamation and insult (n = 343), cyber violence (n = 261), and physical wound due to violence (n = 247). In the trends in the four years, the number of incidents increased in the elementary schools from 1,646 in 2012 to 2,129 in 2015, whereas the numbers decreased in the middle schools (11,867 to 7,955) and high schools (5,140 to 4,316) during the same years (Kim et al., 2018). The researchers argued that the increase in the number of school counselors in middle and high schools would impact the amount of school violence (Kim et al., 2018). It is also noteworthy that cyber violence is increasing at all levels of schools whereas most of the other forms of school violence are decreasing. Researchers addressed that not only does the number of school counselors need to be increased but also there must be an improvement in school counselor education curriculum and practicum, in-service training, and supervision systems to strengthen their competencies to cover various issues in school counseling (Choung & Yang, 2018; Huh, 2000; Nam & Yu, 2016; Yu, 2006). SOGI and School Life in South Korea Since South Korea does not include any items to estimate the SOGI minority population in national statistical surveys, there is no representative statistical data for SOGI minority youth in South Korea (Yi et al., 2022). However, although there is a limitation that they are not intended to measure the population of the SOGI minority, such as asking participants’ SOGI or collective identity as SOGI minority, there are two national surveys for Korean adolescents, including items related to SOGI issues. For example, in a survey of 2,280 middle and high school students conducted by the Korea Youth Counseling Institute (2003) through stratified random sampling, about 11% of the respondents said they were “concerned about homosexual tendencies.” Similarly, in the Korea Youth Risk Behavior Web-Based Survey of 75,149 middle and high school students conducted by the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2016), about 5% of them reported they had sex with a same-sex partner. In addition, it can be difficult to grasp accurate statistics in the SOGI minority population. Because in a social situation where stigma and oppression against SOGI minority exist, even responding to a survey can be perceived as a great burden or challenge for some SOGI minority people, which can lead

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in South Korea  71 to failure to respond properly and omission from the survey results (Na & Jung, 2015). Statistics at the level of researchers so far show that 5.8% to 15.2% of middle and high school students in South Korea are SOGI minorities (Joo, 2019). In 2021, about 5.3 million students were in elementary, middle, and high schools in South Korea (The Ministry of Education & Korean Educational Development Institute, 2021). When approximately 10% of Korean students are expected to identify as SOGI minorities, therefore it can be estimated that at least 540,000 SOGI minority children and adolescents are in school in South Korea. According to the survey by NHRCK in 2014, 92% of SOGI minority youth reported that they had hidden their identity as a SOGI minority from people around them, so the possibility of more SOGI minority children and adolescents attending school should be considered. Historical Background on School Settings

The issue of SOGI in schools coincides with the beginning of the Korean SOGI rights movement, where the first demonstration organized by SOGI minorities was held under the slogan of the Homosexual Coalition Committee to revise textbooks that are discriminatory to homosexuals at T’apgol Park on June 28, 1997 (Kwon Kim & Cho, 2010; Chingusai, 2016). For example, the 1999 high school textbook of the ethics class pointed out homosexuality as one of the moral problems, saying, “With the growth of AIDS, homosexuality, prostitution, sexual violence, drugs, etc., the collapse of sexual morals is causing social problems.” Also, the 1999 high school ‘(military) drill’ textbook said, “Love and sex between members of the same sex are responsible for a number of side-effects including AIDS,” which reinforced prejudice against gay and HIV. The Ministry of Education has diversity and multiculturalism as part of its core key words since the seventh curriculum was announced in 1997, and the “social studies” and “ethics” curricula revised in 2007 included the experience of discrimination and inequality among social minorities, but sexual and gender minorities were not specified (Korean Society of LGBT Studies, 2016). Since 2014, textbooks such as Ethics and Health in middle schools, and Life and Ethics in high schools began to include sexual and gender minorities. This caused an onset of protests from conservative Christian groups and some lawmakers who said, “It advocates or promotes abnormal homosexuality contrary to nature’s providence” (Korean Society of LGBT Studies, 2016). However, even the actual content showed a superficial or contradictory attitude on the issue of SOGI, making it difficult to say that SOGI minority people are treated equally as members of society in textbooks. For example, the high school Life and Ethics textbook stated, “It is difficult to say that sexual minorities are medically abnormal,” but added, “[o]f course, it is true that sexual minorities give the impression that it is not natural by doing sexual behavior that is impossible to reproduce naturally.” The textbook also stated, “We should respect sexual minorities as members of our society with normal

72  Eunhui Yoon and SungWon Yoon-Lee emotions and abilities,” then added, “[b]ut it is difficult to say justly about acknowledging marriage of sexual minorities” (Lee, 2013). However, even this has been deleted or modified since this social controversy, so the term “sexual minority” has been removed from textbooks used since 2018, and only the vague term “social underprivileged” has been used (The Ministry of Education, 2018). In 2001, the Ministry of Education published the “Guidelines for Middle School Sex Education Teachers” and the “Guidelines for High School Sex Education Teachers,” but again, the position was inconsistent, showing a lack of awareness of SOGI rights, or only a very small amount (National Human Rights Commission, 2021). For example, the guidelines for middle school explained that homosexuality should be viewed as “a human life and a form of affection” rather than as a deviation, but the guidelines for high school had many limitations, such as explaining homosexuality from a psychopathological perspective or revealing perceptions that connect AIDS to homosexuality. The National School Sexuality Education Standard announced by the Ministry of Education in 2015 has been criticized by civic groups and others for intentionally omitting content regarding SOGI and including content that reinforces sexism and gender binary. In 2022, the standard has not been reorganized. The Ministry of Education explained these points as follows: But, as “homosexuality” is not a common issue in relation to “sexual orientation”, the subject was not actively included at a government level in the process of preparing the “School Sexual Education Manual” (school education needs to maintain value neutrality regarding society, culture, and religion). (Human Rights Watch, 2015) In addition, gender identity was explained by “Gender Identity Disorder,” and pathologized, inaccurate, and inappropriate contents were described (NHRCK, 2021). In 2019, the Korean Ministry of Education answered the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) during the combined fifth and sixth periodic reports of the ROK to UNCRC, saying “Current sex education curriculum does not cover SOGI, and there are no future plans.” Regarding SOGI issues, UNCRC urged the Korean government to enact antidiscrimination law and include SOGI content in its sex education standards (Thoreson, 2019). In addition to the school curriculum and education, it is also an important task to specify the rights of students from diverse sociocultural backgrounds, including SOGI minority students, and to prepare laws and policies to protect them. One attempt was the enactment of the Students’ Human Rights Ordinance by some regional offices of education. Starting with Gyeonggi-do in 2010, it was enacted in Gwangju, Seoul, Jeollabuk-do, and Chungcheongnam-do, all of which include “sexual orientation” in the list of targets prohibiting

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in South Korea  73 discrimination. Seoul and Chungcheongnam-do also include “gender identity” in addition to “sexual orientation” in the list. However, there are practical difficulties in implementing the Students’ Human Rights Ordinance, which is not prioritized over individual school regulations, so additional legislation such as antidiscrimination law and student human rights law is required (NHRCK, 2016). In April 2021, the Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education stated there would be “protection and support for SOGI minority students” through the second Comprehensive Plan for Student Human Rights, referring to “support for counseling on human rights violations such as discrimination and hatred” and “strengthening gender equality monitoring for educational materials and promotional materials.” It is an encouraging change in that the Office of Education promised support for SOGI minority students for the first time in South Korea; however, the specific implementation plan for this has not been disclosed, so the work of establishing it needs to be continued. Experiences of SOGI Minority Students Peer’s Aggression

According to the NHRCK’s Investigation on Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in 2014, 54% of SOGI minority youth respondents have been bullied by other students for being SOGI minority or having gender nonconforming appearance or behaviors, or same-sex attraction. A specific example of this was shown in multiple responses in the survey as follows: verbal abuse (47.5%), talking behind my back (28%), being outed (24.5%), targeted insults (21%), cyberbullying (17%), bullying (14.5%), the threat of being outed (13%), sexual harassment or violence (10%), damaging, taking, or stealing personal belongings (8%), and physical violence (4.5%). Harassment and violence in cyberspace can be made in a more explicit and sophisticated way, taking advantage of the blind spots where students can act anonymously and are difficult for school authorities to control. According to a 2021 report by Human Rights Watch, cyberbullying takes place in a variety of forms against SOGI minority students, such as leaving anonymous aggressive comments on their Facebook pages and posting several disparaging comments on Facebook pages, targeting them without mentioning their names (Human Rights Watch, 2021). Direct verbal and physical violence is also a part of the threat perceived by SOGI minority students, but fear of being ostracized by peers also plays a large part. According to Human Rights Watch (2021), Korean students spend an average of 14 hours a day at school and cram schools, so for Korean SOGI minority students, being excluded from other students in these places can mean isolation in their lives. In addition, this exclusion and isolation not only hinder them from focusing on learning but also negatively affects their mental health and well-being, prevents them from having a sense of belonging and connection at school, and acts as an obstacle to positive identity development as a SOGI minority.

74  Eunhui Yoon and SungWon Yoon-Lee In particular, students who are transgender, gender nonconforming, expansive identity or expression (TGNC/E) can become more vulnerable to such bullying. In the survey, 20% of transgender students reported that they had experienced physical violence by other students, which is statistically 5.6 times higher than cisgender students. And 33.3% of transgender students experienced bullying at a rate three times higher than cisgender students. This means that Korean schools are not only unsafe spaces for SOGI minority youth but can also be “the most hateful social spaces” (UNESCO, 2012). It is also difficult for students who experience such hatred and violence against the SOGI minority to actively respond to this. In a survey by NHRCK (2014), 86.5% of SOGI minority youth said they had never informed their teachers of homophobic or transphobic bullying by other students, and none of them said they had always informed them. A small number of respondents informed teachers of the violence by other students but only half of them consulted or warned the perpetrators, while the other half told the victims not to care or to forget (28.6%), and even did not respond (21.4%). When the victims were asked why they did not inform the teacher (multiple responses were allowed), 78.9% said, “[B]ecause I didn’t want to let the teacher know that I’m a queer,” and the other one was “because I didn’t think informing the teacher would solve the problem” (71.1%). There were also other reasons like “I didn’t want to make a big deal out of it” (58.9%), and “I was afraid I would be retaliated for informing them” (12.2%). It seems that specific policies and intervention procedures are needed not only for hatred and violence against SOGI minority people but also for school violence as a whole. When asked if SOGI minority adolescents were willing to inform their caregivers or guardians and ask for help when they experienced bullying, 84.5% said they would not inform them (NHRCK, 2014). However, when adolescents who came out to their families or guardians were asked this, 61.3% of them said they would not inform them. While more than half of SOGI minority adolescents found it difficult to ask for help from their families and guardians in both cases, this shows that their coping patterns may vary depending on whether they have come out to their families and guardians or whether their families accept and support them. Teachers and Staff Members’ Aggression

Bullying and violence against SOGI minority youth were also perpetrated by teachers. According to a survey by the NHRCK (2014), 20% of the respondents reported that they were bullied by teachers because they were SOGI minority individuals. Specific examples include hearing insults directly from the teacher (15%), “talking behind my back” (8.5%), or “being outed” by the teacher (3.5%). In addition, some SOGI minority youth responded that they experienced targeted abuse (3.5%), verbal abuse (3.5%), or physical punishment (2.5%) by the teachers after they found out or suspected that the student was a SOGI minority. Similar results were found in NHRCK’s Investigation of

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in South Korea  75 Discrimination against people who identify as transgender in 2021, a nationwide survey of 583 TGNC/E people. A total of 21.3% of the respondents reported that they suffered more than one unfair treatment or violence by their teachers, such as verbal abuse, being outed, sexual harassment or sexual abuse, disadvantages in student evaluations, and physical violence while attending middle and high school (NHRCK, 2021). Teachers are responsible for protecting students’ human rights and providing a safe environment. They also have the duty and responsibility to provide a role model as educators on how students can live together in school with other students from diverse sociocultural backgrounds different from themselves. It is unacceptable for such teachers to lead the violence and discrimination. According to the report from Human Rights Watch (2021), SOGI issues are not directly addressed in the curriculum, but as a topic in the activity of debate on contemporary social issues in social studies or civics classes, with questions like this, “Do you agree or disagree with homosexuality?” In many cases, teachers structure these class activities to allow students to participate in discussions by dividing them into pros and cons, and sometimes students are asked to argue opinions that are irrelevant to their preexisting opinions. This approach to SOGI issues is problematic in that it disregards a basic human right of freedom to express one’s sexual orientation and gender identity. This strengthens as well as reproduces prejudice and stigma against SOGI minority people. Teachers should help students learn the basic knowledge they need to know about SOGI issues and human rights through the curriculum and strive to create an inclusive and affirmative educational environment for SOGI minority students. NHRCK (2014) also investigated teachers’ perceptions of SOGI minority youth, with the largest percentage (59%) of respondents saying, “Teachers should support homosexual students to grow up with self-esteem in their sexual identity.” However, it was followed by a somewhat passive response that “[h]omosexuality is only a matter of an individual and not a problem for teachers to interfere” (21%). Many heterocentric responses were also reported, including “[h]omosexuality is not appropriate, but it is temporary to show homosexual tendencies at an early age, so there is no need to intervene” (13%), “[h]omosexuality is unacceptable, and adolescence is a time when identity is formed, so active intervention is required” (7%). Above all, in the question of homonegativity, half of the respondents agreed with the idea, “[i]t is not natural for men to love men,” and 39% agreed with “[h]omosexuality negatively affects growing students,” 37% with “[w]omen’s love for women is related to their negative experiences as children,” 37% with “[t]he desire to live in a gender different from the gender born stems from the negative experiences of childhood,” and 18% with “[w]hen learning the concept of homosexuality in school, there is a risk that heterosexual students will also become homosexuals” (NHRCK, 2014). False knowledge and negative perceptions of SOGI minorities are still prevalent among teachers. Etiological interpretations or theoretical models that are interpreted as immature or underdeveloped regarding the SOGI minority were already denied through multiple studies in

76  Eunhui Yoon and SungWon Yoon-Lee psychology and psychiatry before the 1970s, and “homosexuality” was also deleted from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) and ICD (Drescher, 2015). The fact that false information corrected 50 years ago is widespread among Korean teachers in the 2020s is difficult to understand, even considering that 79% of the respondents have never experienced education on SOGI issues. On the other hand, in the same report, some teachers responded positively to SOGI minority students and also cited a lack of related information (69.5%) as the most difficult point in SOGI minority student guidance (NHRCK, 2014). These statistics suggest that there is a need for education on SOGI issues for incumbent teachers and students from the National University of Education, the College of Education, and the Graduate School of Education. Other difficulties expressed by teachers who reported their supportive attitudes toward SOGI minority adolescents were students’ negative perceptions of SOGI issues (55.9%), the absence of a school policy on SOGI minority students, school managers’ negative perceptions of SOGI minority individuals, and fellow teachers’ negative perceptions of SOGI minorities (NHRCK, 2014). It is expected that efforts and education on improving the overall awareness of school members will be needed. According to a 2021 report by Human Rights Watch, schools are not safe for SOGI minority teachers. Currently, there are no employment protections in South Korea that prohibits workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, including antidiscrimination laws, and there is a backlash from parents with false information or negative prejudice against SOGI minority people. SOGI minority teachers said they might lose their jobs or face disciplinary action if they open their sexual orientation or gender identity at school. SOGI issues are considered political issues in schools, and it is also not easy for teachers to speak up and advocate for SOGI minority students. In 2017, there was one incident where a teacher was sued by a conservative Christian group for child abuse for showing students a video of SOGI minority people marching during class. The lawsuit ended without charge, and the teacher won the lawsuit against the defamation of the conservative group, but this shows how difficult it is to practice inclusive education without the protection of laws and systems in the current Korean education field. Systemic Aggression

In addition to students and teachers, it should also be noted that the school’s policies and systems also contribute to such bullying and discrimination against SOGI minority students. According to a survey by NHRCK (2014), 19% of SOGI minority youth answered that there was a ban on same-sex relations in their school. Among the 200 respondents, 34.2% (n = 13) reported that there was no policy to prohibit dating between female and male students in the school, but confirming that there are school rules that specify and suppress

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in South Korea  77 same-sex relationships. The survey also found that 57% (n = 114) of the respondents had same-sex relationships in middle or high schools. Four of them reported that they had been disciplined because they were gays and lesbians; three reported that they had experienced demerit scores of the conduct or penalties, and one had experienced suspension and recommendations to drop out of the school (NHRCK, 2014). In addition, some SOGI minority adolescents reported disciplinary experiences for being unlike a man/woman, and among those disciplined, six responded that they had experienced demerit points or penalties, one had experienced suspension, recommendations to drop out, and expulsion. In the same survey, a total of 4.5% of all respondents were confirmed to have experienced the so-called Iban Geomyeol, which means searching for non-cisgender-hetero individuals in the school, 5% of them had policies imposing penalties such as demerits or suspensions because they were SOGI minority, and 3% had been forced to transfer or experienced expulsion. Through these, it can be seen that human rights violations against SOGI minority adolescents are serious in the school settings of South Korea, not only preventing SOGI minority adolescents from attending school safely but also unfairly infringing on their educational rights. Microaggression and Awareness of SOGI Issues

As we have seen earlier, if SOGI minority adolescents are found to be SOGI minority at school, or if they appear to be gender nonconforming or queer in other people’s eyes, schools can be a threatening space as the increased risk of being subjected to bullying and discrimination. If they choose not to come out as a SOGI minority at school, or if they are able to be stealthy in their identity and expression to avoid being targeted, can schools function as a safe enough space for SOGI minority youth? Through such strategies, SOGI minority adolescents may be able to block the possibility of being subject to such violence against the SOGI minority; however, hate speech and expressions toward SOGI minority people can still be encountered without specifying an object. It is through the use of language and expression revealed in conversations that students can perceive the awareness and climate on SOGI issues for the first time at school. In the qualitative research on SOGI minority adolescents’ experiences in or out of high school conducted by Joo (2017), the participants had witnessed or experienced pranks, jokes, and curses, as well as homo/bi/transphobic reactions and abusive language against SOGI minority celebrities. In a 2014 NHRCK survey, 92% of SOGI minority adolescent respondents said they had heard at least one hate expression from other students, and 80% said they had heard at least one hate expression from teachers. Examples were as follows: “It is not natural for men to love men,” “Homosexuality is immoral,” “Homosexuality negatively affects growing students,” “The love for the same sex can be cured through treatment,” “When learning the concept of homosexuality in school, there is a risk that heterosexual students will also

78  Eunhui Yoon and SungWon Yoon-Lee become homosexuals,” “Women’s love for women is related to their negative experiences as children,” “Those who want to change sex should be forced to live in their natural gender through treatment,” and “The desire to live in a gender different from the gender born stems from the negative experiences of childhood.” This confirms that remarks based on negative prejudice and stigma against SOGI minority people are being made by both students and teachers in schools. There were also many examples of expression of unreserved and undefined hatred (e.g., dirty, disgusting, and gross) and expressing criticism against SOGI minority people just by using expressions that refer to them (e.g., gay and les(bian)). In the survey of NHRCK (2014), 28.5% of SOGI minority adolescents were confronted directly against these hate expressions, but in general, they were afraid of being revealed to be SOGI minority (77%), so they often responded by pretending not to hear them or ignore them (58%), not directly confronting, or even pretending to agree with them (33%). In a 2019 NHRCK survey conducted by random probability sampling of adolescents aged 15 to 17 to investigate their perceptions of hate expressions, 57% of adolescent respondents said they had experienced hate expressions against the SOGI minority. A total of 23.9% reported they had used them, and when asked about the frequency of use, 17.7% answered “sometimes used,” 2.1% answered “frequently used,” and 1.4% answered “very often,” indicating that 21.2% of adolescents who had used those hate expressions continued to use them. Adolescents generally agreed that discrimination against the SOGI minority exists in Korean society (73.7%), hate expressions will not decrease naturally (84.7%), and school education should be expanded to respect human rights and diversity (86.4%). At the same time, they expressed somewhat pessimistic views about the hatred and discrimination in Korean society, saying that social conflicts will intensify (85.6%) and that discrimination will intensify (82.3%). Regardless of their perception of the discrimination, they also agreed that “homosexuality is a disease to be treated” (50.2%) and “homosexuality is the cause of AIDS” (51.6%). It is expected that accurate knowledge and education of SOGI issues are needed to prevent the spread of stigma against the SOGI minority as they appear to accept outdated information and negative prejudice against SOGI minority people in Korean society. Microaggression against the SOGI minority population can also be reflected in the school’s curriculum and educational content. According to Joo (2017), the official sex education curriculum did not include sexual and gender minorities at all, so SOGI minority adolescents reported an indirect and implicitly excluded experience, and Joo criticized the content of these textbooks that implicitly emphasized traditional norms of gender and sexuality, treating SOGI minority students as invisible. In the study, participants stated that teachers expressed prejudice against SOGI minority people, and even reported that it was better to move on without mentioning the SOGI issue (Joo, 2017).

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in South Korea  79 Gender Segregation in Schools

Although it is gradually decreasing, as of 2021, about 35% of all high schools and about 21% of all middle schools are gender segregated, especially more than half of private schools. According to a 2014 NHRCK report, it can also be confirmed that there are clothing and hair restriction policies based on the gender binary system, with 31.3% of participants responding that these policies existed for female students and 59.7% for male students. There were five cases in which these school rules were relaxed and applied to transgender students, and seven responded that they were able to wear uniforms suitable for their gender identity. However, 53.3% of the 15 transgender respondents were found to wear uniforms that did not fit their gender, 50% of them said they felt “very inappropriate” and 37.5% said “somewhat inappropriate” to their uniforms (NHRCK, 2014). In a survey of transgender people (NHRCK, 2021), 92.3% of all respondents recalled they had difficulties due to the environment and system when they were in middle and high school. Specific examples include lack of sex education on SOGI issues (69.2%), wearing uniforms that do not fit gender identity (62.3%), using toilets that do not fit gender identity (51.7%), and no locker rooms (45.9%) (NHRCK, 2021). Forcing TGNC/E students to follow their assigned sex at birth can worsen their gender dysphoria, and the inability of individuals to use the toilets of their gender makes it difficult for them to go to the restroom, making them overly patient or afraid of drinking water. Transgender and gender minority students experience urinal tract infection or dehydration due to these school regulations, which are often reported in other countries as well (Lewis & Eckes, 2020). There have been many reports of discomfort due to regulations and practices in and out of school that do not recognize students’ gender identity but only assigned sex at birth. This included gender-segregated schools such as girls’ middle/high school and boys’ middle/high school (38%), a gendered class placement that does not fit gender identity (19.7%), and gendered dormitory placement that does not fit gender identity (18.2%). Current Practices in South Korean Schools Currently, there are no ground rules or guidelines for specifying work boundaries for Korean school counselors due to the lack of laws and systems for school counseling, which makes it difficult to approach professional and ethical issues in counseling, such as confidentiality issues and intervention for child abuse and school violence (Je & Jo, 2020; Ha et al., 2020). Nevertheless, through the Wee Project of the Ministry of Education, almost half of the middle and high schools currently have “professional counseling teachers,” who exist as a resource for students to ask for help when they need it. Even though they have access to “professional counseling teachers” who are certified school counselors, few South Korean SOGI students seek help from them. Only 11.6% stated that they have discussed issues related to sexual

80  Eunhui Yoon and SungWon Yoon-Lee identity with their counselor (National Human Rights Committee, 2014). Students avoid counselors because they believed teachers will not understand, will not be helpful, and/or will try to “fix” them. These trends suggest an urgent need to improve the current system for school counseling in South Korea. Among the students who received school counseling services, 52.4% reported that school counseling was not helpful at all. Of the respondents, 28.6% stated that the school counselors told the students they must fix their SOGI identity (NHRCK, 2014). Even worse, some students reported that their school counselor outed them to other students (NHRCK, 2014). Whereas, in the study of school counselors’ experiences with SOGI minority adolescents (Yoo, 2022), the participants reported that they are not confident with counseling SOGI minority clients. They also reported that they are afraid of harming the clients due to their lack of readiness, ignorance, and stereotypes, therefore, they experience emotional exhaustion on meeting the clients. According to Yoo (2022), they have never been educated related to SOGI minority counseling in school; they have negative attitudes against SOGI minority individuals; they struggled to be open-minded because they doubted that the clients are having “real SOGI minority identity.” The school counselor stated they experienced barriers when searching for resources inside and outside of the school. Many school counselors also felt overwhelmed and isolated (Yoo, 2022). The result of the study warrants systemic support for school counselors. There need to be SOGI minority counseling guidelines endorsed by the school district and the Ministry of Education, which controls all the public schools in South Korea. In addition, improvement of the counselor education curriculum, including SOGI minority counseling issues and competencies, clinical supervisors who are experts in the issue and the population, and continuing education programs, is also required. SOGI Minority in School Settings: Hope for the Future As discussed in this chapter, there are many difficulties and challenges for SOGI minority students and teachers in Korean schools. First, as can be seen from the achievements and limitations identified through the enactment of the Students’ Human Rights Ordinance, it is important to enact laws that prohibit discrimination in schools based on sexual orientation and gender identity while also protecting the rights of SOGI minority members in schools, such as the antidiscrimination law and the student human rights law. Next, the Ministry of Education and the Offices of Education should establish and implement specific human rights policies for SOGI minority students so that schools can function as safe and friendly spaces for SOGI minority students. It is also crucial to create an educational environment that is not only harmless to SOGI minority students but also affirmative. Gender-segregated school systems and policies should be changed to an inclusive form, and gender-neutral toilets and changing rooms should be provided. It is necessary to revise the National School Sexuality Education Standard to convey basic knowledge of sexual orientation/behavior and gender identity/expression. Additionally, schools should

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in South Korea  81 cover education on topics necessary for SOGI minority students, including sexual and gender identity development, minority stress coping, and HIV/AIDS issues. To foster students’ awareness of human rights and to help them respond effectively to human rights violations, it is necessary to mandate the implementation of human rights education that covers SOGI human rights. In addition, an overall reorganization is needed to infuse the topics of SOGI into the entire curriculum as well as specific subjects such as sex education and “social studies.” It should be recognized that inclusive education for SOGI minority children and adolescents is also required to guarantee educational rights under the Constitution of the ROK (Kim, 2016). For practical use in classes, teaching methods and educational materials should be prepared in a way that encompasses SOGI issues as a matter of basic human rights, not in a way of discussion and debate on the existence of SOGI minority people and their lives. To help learn this curriculum, training and supervision for incumbent teachers should be provided. Education on sexual and gender minority issues should be an essential course required for pre-service teachers and students at the College of Education. It is required to provide relevant manuals and education for school counselors and teachers to prevent as well as intervene in school violence against SOGI minority students. It is expected that it will be helpful to establish a dedicated organization within the Office of Education to support SOGI minority students. The Ministry of Education should no longer sacrifice the human rights and lives of SOGI minority people in schools. It is expected that it will show leadership and drive to come up with specific human rights policies for SOGI minority students, as the Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education has recently shown. References Amnesty International. (2019). Serving in silence: LGBTI people in South Korea’s military. https://amnesty.or.kr/wp-content/uploads/bcp-attach/Serving-in-Silence-ReportOnline-final-versionEng.pdf Chingusai. (2016, May 20). From the incomplete man to the incomplete man: An outline history of human rights movement for sexual minority youths (1997–2007). Chingusai Newsletter. https://chingusai.net/xe/newsletter/471574 Choung, J., & Yang, N. (2018). The study of professional development of Korean counseling teacher. Korean Journal of Counseling, 19(4), 47–70. https://doi.org/10.15703/ kjc.19.4.201808.47 Drescher, J. (2015). Out of DSM: Depathologizing homosexuality. Behavioral Sciences, 5(4), 565–575. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs5040565 Economic Planning Board. (1979). Korean standard classification of diseases (2nd ed.). Ha, G., Heo, N., Lee, J., & Lee, S. (2020). Exploring the direction of legalization of school counseling in Korea: Focus on the case of Taiwan. The Korean Journal of Counseling and Psychotherapy, 32(2), 997–1017. https://scholarworks.bwise.kr/sch/ handle/2021.sw.sch/3543 Heo, N., Lee, J., Ha, G., Ko, H., Na, G., & Lee, S. (2020). A work pattern analysis of Korean professional school counselors. Korean Journal of Counseling, 21(3), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.15703/kjc.21.3.202006.1

82  Eunhui Yoon and SungWon Yoon-Lee Huh, S. H. (2000). The study for the specialization of elementary school counseling in Korea-with the credentialing requirements for elementary school counselor. The Journal of Elementary Education, 14(1), 129–143. https://kiss.kstudy.com/thesis/ thesis-view.asp?key=1611741 Human Rights Watch. (2015, May 3). South Korea: Amend sex education guidelines. https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/05/03/south-korea-amend-sex-education-guidelines Human Rights Watch. (2021). I thought of myself as defective: Neglecting the rights of LGBT youth in South Korean schools. https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/ media_2021/09/southkorea0921_web.pdf Je, Y., & Jo, H. (2020). A qualitative study on the needs of professional counseling teachers about school counseling law system. Korean Journal of Counseling, 21(1), 49–67. https://doi.org/10.15703/kjc.21.1.202002.49 Joo, J. (2017). Hidden lives of Korean LGBT adolescents: A qualitative case study. Journal of Education & Culture, 23(1), 175–215. https://doi.org/10.24159/joec.2017.23.1.175 Joo, J. H. (2019). Content analysis of research trends of sexual minority youth in Korea: Implications and tasks. Journal of Education and Culture, 25(6), 533–560. https:// doi.org/10.24159/joec.2019.25.6.533 Kim, H., Kim, C., & Son, E. (2018). A study of the current status and responsive measures of school violence and professional counseling teacher. The Journal of Learner-Centered Curriculum and Instruction, 18(18), 379–405. https://doi.org/10.22251/ jlcci.2018.18.18.379 Kim, J. (2016). Inclusive education for LGBTI children and youth. Journal of Korean Social Trend and Perspective, 96, 153–178. https://www.kci.go.kr/kciportal/ci/ sereArticleSearch/ciSereArtiView.kci?sereArticleSearchBean.artiId=ART002077948 Kim, K. (2021). A study of current status and tasks of elementary school counseling. Korean Journal of Counseling, 22(6), 49–73. https://doi.org/10.15703/kjc.22.6.202112.49 Korean Society of Law and Policy on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity. (2016). Human rights situation of LGBTI in South Korea 2015: SOGILAW annual report. https://sogilaw.org/64 Korean Society of Law and Policy on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity. (2017). Human rights situation of LGBTI in South Korea 2016: SOGILAW annual report. https://sogilaw.org/70 Korean Society of Law and Policy on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity. (2020). Human rights situation of LGBTI in South Korea 2019: SOGILAW annual report. https://sogilaw.org/77 Korean Society of LGBT Studies. (2016). 12 questions about LGBT against the age of hatred. https://lgbtstudies.or.kr/ Kwon Kim, H., & Cho, J. (2010). The Korean gay and lesbian movement, 1993–2003: From ‘identity’ to’ community’ to ‘human rights’. In G. Shin, & P. Y. Chang (Eds.), South Korean social movement: From democracy to civil society (pp. 210–220). Routledge. Lee, H. (2013, July 9). Sexual minorities in Ethics textbooks, what do you think? Media Today. https://www.mediatoday.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=110714 Lee, K., Kweon, H., & Kim, H. (2008). Analysis on early settlement of professional school counselors. Korean Journal of Psychology: General, 27(3). 819–837. https:// www.kci.go.kr/kciportal/ci/sereArticleSearch/ciSereArtiView.kci?sereArticleSearch Bean.artiId=ART001297582 Lewis, M. M., & Eckes, S. E. (2020). Storytelling, leadership, and the law: Using amicus briefs to understand the impact of school district policies and practices related to

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in South Korea  83 transgender student inclusion. Educational Administration Quarterly, 56(1), 46–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X19840389 The Ministry of Education. (2018, December 19). There is no term for ‘sexual minority’ in the current curriculum. Republic of Korea Policy Briefing. https://www.korea.kr/ news/actuallyView.do?newsId=148856544 The Ministry of Education, & Korean Educational Development Institute. (2021). 2021 education statistics key indicators. https://kess.kedi.re.kr/mobile/publ/publFile? survSeq=2021&menuSeq=3648&publSeq=59&menuCd=89646&menuId= 0_7&itemCode=02. Na, T. Y., & Jung, H.-H. (2015). Problems encountered in drawing LGBTI population and communities: Focus on South Korean LGBTI Community Social Needs Assessment Survey. Journal of Feminist Theories and Practices, 32, 92–108. https://www. dbpia.co.kr/Journal/articleDetail?nodeId=NODE06292304 Nam, S., & Yu, H. (2016). Development of supervision model based on the developmental stage of professional school counselors. Korean Journal of Counseling, 17(4), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.15703/kjc.17.4.201608.1 National Human Rights Commission of Korea. (2014). An investigation on discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. https://www.humanrights.go.kr/ site/program/board/basicboard/view?currentpage=4&menuid=00100300 1004&pagesize=10&boardtypeid=16&boardid=611289 National Human Rights Commission of Korea. (2016). An investigation on the protection of human rights of students in school life. https://www.humanrights.go.kr/base/ board/read?boardManagementNo=17&boardNo=616233&searchCategory= &page=3&searchType=total&searchWord=%ED%95%99%EC%83%9D&menuLev el=3&menuNo=115 National Human Rights Commission of Korea. (2019). An investigation on youth perception of hate expression. https://www.humanrights.go.kr/site/program/board/ basicboard/view?&boardtypeid=16&menuid=001003001004001&pagesize= 10&boardid=7604681 National Human Rights Commission of Korea. (2021). An investigation on transphobia and discrimination based on transgender. https://www.humanrights.go.kr/site/ program/board/basicboard/view?currentpage=2&menuid=0010030010 04001&pagesize=10&boardtypeid=16&boardid=7606312 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2019). Society at a glance 2019: OECD social indicators. https://doi.org/10.1787/soc_glance-2019-en Park, K. Y., & Lim, E. M. (2014). The study of concept mapping about experience of burnout of professional school counselors. Secondary Education Research, 62(1), 171–198. https://doi.org/10.25152/ser.2014.62.1.171 Rainbow Action Against Sexual Minority Discrimination. (2017). Human rights violations on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, and HIV status in the Republic of Korea (Republic of Korea, for the 60th Session). Suggestions for Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and HIV-Related Questions and Recommendations, Joint Civil Society Submission to the Committee against Torture for State Compliance with the Convention against Torture. https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CAT/ Shared%20Documents/KOR/INT_CAT_CSS_KOR_27029_E.pdf Solidarity for LGBT Human Rights of Korea. (2003). Korean history of gay and lesbian. http://lgbtpride.or.kr/xe/index.php?mid=data_docs&document_srl=2628 Statistics Korea. (1995). Korean standard classification of diseases (3rd ed.).

84  Eunhui Yoon and SungWon Yoon-Lee Thoreson, R. (2019, October 16). UN body urges South Korea to improve sexuality education: Steps needed to protect sexual and gender minority children. Human RightsWatch.https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/10/16/un-body-urges-south-korea-improvesexuality-education United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2012). Education sector responses to homophobic bullying: Good policy and practice in HIV and health education, booklet 8. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000216493 World Health Organization. (2018). International classification of diseases (11th ed.). https://icd.who.int/ Yi, H., Lee, H., Choo, S., Kim, R., Eom, Y.-J., & Kim, S.-S. (2022). Importance of collecting sexual orientation and gender identity information in nationally representative surveys of South Korea. Journal of Critical Social Policy, 74, 175–208. https:// doi.org/10.47042/ACSW.2022.2.74.175 Yoo, S. A. (2022). A qualitative study on the experience and perception of school counselors on sexual minority youth counseling [Master’s thesis, Korea National University of Education]. http://www.riss.kr/link?id=T16076635 Yu, H. (2006). A study on the establishment of student-teaching practice systems for the preparation of school counselors. The Journal of Learner-Centered Curriculum and Instruction, 6(2), 215–233. https://www.kci.go.kr/kciportal/ci/sereArticleSearch/ ciSereArtiView.kci?sereArticleSearchBean.artiId=ART001175013

5

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and School life in Taiwan Hung Chiao and Te-Sheng Chang

Introduction On the day of July 25, 1994, two female students from the gifted class of Taipei First Girls High School committed suicide by burning charcoal in a small hostel (Hsieh, 2017). They left a note: [I]t is hard to be a human. What makes us feel difficult isn’t frustration or pressure as you can imagine, but the nature of how to survive in this society is not for us. It is not easy to live our everyday life and often fall into a self-defeating situation. When the public suspected that they might be a same-sex couple, the principal responded, “There are no homosexuals in Taipei First Girls High School.” Fast-forward to 2014, a biology teacher at Taichung First Senior High School, Kai-Hsin Tseng, came out to the public as male-to-female and won full support from the school principal, her colleagues, and students. Last but not least, on May 24, 2019, the first day of the legalization of same-sex marriage in Taiwan, 526 same-sex couples got married that day and 1,173 in total in a month (Ministry of Interior, 2019). Politically, Taiwan has gone so far from patriarchal colonization and dictatorship to electing the first female president for two terms in history. There is still room for growth in sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) minority rights in schools. This chapter will provide an overview of various SOGI issues in society and schools in Taiwan. Minorities in Taiwanese Society In Taiwan, the term commonly used to describe minorities is disadvantaged groups, or weak power groups (弱勢族群, pronounced as ro-shi-zhu-chen). This term is an umbrella term to describe groups that do not function or perform “normal” tasks and are vulnerable to all types of risks. Besides those who traditionally belong to minority statuses, such as people with a mental and physical disability, sexual minorities, youth and adolescents from families with low economic status and/or caretakers with a history of violence/crime history DOI: 10.4324/9781003430414-5

86  Hung Chiao and Te-Sheng Chang or addictions, unemployment, neglect (used to be high-risks family, now relabeled as a vulnerable family), single-parent or intergenerational household, one of the parents with immigrant status, and/or aboriginal/native status can be seen as minorities in schools. In other words, not only youth and adolescents but also their family members or family situations present characteristics or status that do not fit mainstream types and can be seen as minorities. In essence, youths and adolescents or their families who fall out of the normal curves can be categorized and treated as minorities. Take language use as an example of minority status. Several governments were taken over during Taiwan’s history. For example, Japan government was the governing body in Taiwan between 1895 and 1945. Japanese was first introduced to Taiwan as “the national language” while allowing bilingual education at the beginning. Then, the Japanese government promoted Japanization in 1937 and encouraged “the national language movement,” including using the Japanese language and Japanese names only. Later in 1945, Taiwan was governed by the Republic of China. Thus, Mandarin Chinese has become the new national language in school systems. While other dialects, such as Taiwanese Hokkien and Hakka were also widely used by locals, Mandarin Chinese was appointed as the official national language to be used and taught in schools. Students who spoke languages other than Mandarin Chinese in schools might be punished by teachers. Those who could not speak good Mandarin Chinese might be seen as less educated. Fast-forward to nowadays. Since 2001, educational reform has started to promote “the mother language.” Therefore, besides Mandarin Chinese, all students in primary schools are required to learn at least one additional language, including Hokkien, Hakka, or the aboriginal Taiwanese language. In addition, Vietnamese, Indonesian, Thai, Tagalog, Khmer, and Burmese languages were appointed to be included in the mother language electives in New Taipei City education systems. While Mandarin Chinese is still the major language used in educational systems nowadays, students and parents have learned that it is academically advantageous to speak more than one language. In sum, the gradually diversified language learning environment is one example of how political power and educational policies can determine privileged and minority status. Since educational policies can make significant differences in eliminating educational disparities among minorities, the primary focus of this chapter is discussing issues experienced by sexual minorities in schools in Taiwan and how educational policies helped. In the next section, critical events related to SOGI rights will be introduced to give readers a more comprehensive view of the contextual factors that led to societal pressure to promote SOGI minority rights in Taiwan. SOGI in Taiwanese Society History and Growth of SOGI Minority Rights in Taiwan

In between the influences of both traditional Chinese and Western cultures, Taiwanese people do not follow only one set of principles and can be open to fairly

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Taiwan  87 new perspectives and new practices. Oftentimes, Taiwanese society is sensitive to international evaluations and strives to meet international human rights trends. For example, Mr. Chia-Wei Chi was the first openly out gay man in Taiwan’s history in 1986. He started to apply for marriage with his same-sex partner first in 1988, was denied, but kept trying various strategies until he came to the Constitutional Court for judicial interpretation, which led to No. 748 (Same-Sex Marriage Case) in 2017 and the legalization of same-sex marriage in 2019. Between 1986 and 2017, several critical events happened and organizations were established that led to social reform. First of all, the martial law in Taiwan was lifted in 1987. This drastic political environment change allowed the development of political parties and mass media, which helped promote liberating voices. Between Us, the first lesbian group, was formed by students and the public in 1990. They published an official bimonthly journal, Girl Friends, from 1994 to 2003 (Cultime, 2021). The first SOGI-friendly Christian group was formed by the female priest, Ya-Hui Yang, and a group of gay Christians in 1995 and the Church, Tong-Kwang Light House Presbyterian Church, was formally established in 1996 (Tong-Kwang Light House Presbyterian Church, n.d.). As to the social movement, 1996 is definitely a stunning year to remember (Bih, 2019). Dr. Yu-Shen Shu and his same-sex partner, Gray Harriman, held the first public same-sex wedding in Taipei. In the same year, the first public SOGI event funded by Taipei City Government was held in Taipei 228 Peace Memorial Park. The success of the event may have been the prelude to the Taiwan LGBT Pride in 2003. The first presidential election was held in March of 1996, and the Sexual Assault Crime Prevention Act (2015) was passed at the end of the year. In 1998, Taiwan Tongzhi Hotline Association, the biggest and the most established SOGI nonprofit organization nowadays, was established and formally registered with the Ministry of Interior in 2000 (Taiwan Tongzhi Hotline Association, n.d.). This organization was first operated by a few hotline volunteers and later grew into 12 full-time employers with over 400 volunteers, providing services of telephone consultation, gender education, family relations and parental support, and community initiatives to address diverse SOGI minority issues, including coming out and general mental health issues, AIDS prevention, elder SOGI issues, intimate relations, as well as transgender issues. The Taiwan Alliance to Promote Civil Partnership Rights (TAPCPR) was founded in 2009 and registered in 2012. TAPCPR drafted three bills of diversified family formation in 2012 that created public conversations on same-sex marriage right as a human right and the legalization of a nonblood family as a strategy to solve societal problems. In 2017, TAPCPR represented Mr. Chi in winning the same-sex marriage case. The Constitutional Court published No. 748 Interpretation on May 24, 2017, provisions of the Civil Code, “which do not allow two persons of the same sex to create a permanent union of intimate and exclusive nature to live a common life, violate the Constitution’s guarantees of freedom of marriage under Article 22 and right to equality under Article 7. (Constitutional Court, 2017).”

88  Hung Chiao and Te-Sheng Chang The victory of No. 748 Interpretation is groundbreaking. Not only did it make Taiwan the first country in Asia to legalize same-sex marriage but also directly attached and reshaped the traditional heterosexual and patriarchal Chinese family concepts. Therefore, the society experienced intense public debates. The biggest counterattack and resistance came from the Guardian Family Coalition (2022) and Coalition for the Happiness of our Next Generation (2022). Both groups were established in 2013 to oppose same-sex marriage and diversified family formation proposals: the former one was primarily supported by religious groups and the latter one called for three referenda, including one husband and one wife as the only definition of family, no gay materials in primary education, and support for forms other than marriage for LGB, in 2017. These three referenda won the more considerable votes, which created drastic and powerful emotional setbacks for SOGI communities in Taiwan. However, it did not change the legal validity of No.748 Interpretation. The government responded to the referenda by passing the Act for Implementation of J.Y. Interpretation No. 748 (2019) instead of directly revising the Civil Code. Current Limitations and Future Directions

Although Taiwan seems to be very progressive in protecting SOGI rights compared with other Asian countries, there is still much room for growth. For example, while same-sex couples can get married and adopt children, they can not use assisted reproductive techniques reimbursed by national insurance, which their heterosexual counterparts are generally qualified for (Assisted Reproduction Act, 2018). In addition, if one of the same-sex couples is from Mainland China, the couple cannot get married in Taiwan (Taiwan Equality Campaign, n.d.). Last but not least, transgender rights still have room for improvement. For example, transgender people being discriminated against in employment (TAPCPR, 2020) or in schools (TAPCPR, 2021) were still happening. Therefore, many groups are working hard to advocate for SOGI human rights in Taiwan. Various Issues in Taiwan Schools Various Influences: Chinese Cultural Values Operating Relationships

Taiwan has been historically and culturally influenced by traditional Chinese hierarchical relationalism, renqing and guanxi (Hwang, 1987), Confucianism (Hsu & Yeh, 2019), and filial piety (Yeh, 2009) cultures. In Confucianism teaching, the five key objects to respect are the sky (the higher power, 天), the earth (地), the emperor (君), parents (or elder family members, 親), and teachers (師). In addition, the five fundamental relationships are monarch and officials (君臣), father and son (父子), husband and wife (夫婦), elder and younger brothers (兄弟), and friends (朋友). Since teachers are among the five key objects to respect, the teacher-student relationship is often considered a parent-child relationship. Therefore, teachers are students’ parents in schools and

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Taiwan  89 shall take care of students as they take care of their own children. In other words, students shall respect their teachers and follow their orders as they obey their parents. A famous Chinese proverb, “Once your teacher, forever your parent,” captures the essence of culturally bonded importance and responsibility in the teacher-student relationship. One time my (the first author of this chapter) homeroom teacher was really mad at some students, and she stopped the regular course and harshly lectured the entire class. Out of everything she said, I only remembered the following until today. She said, I spent all my energy being this mad at you and punishing you because I am your teacher. I treat you all like my own children. If you were not my students, I do not need to care about you. The fact that I am YOUR TEACHER so that I care so much about you and your future. Remember, the only person that will never be jealous of your future achievement and will be so proud of you is your teacher. That is why you must listen to my words. My suggestions are all and only for the benefit of you. In her words, she described her concerns and care for her students as a selfless parent who wholeheartedly and passionately wants the best for her students/ children. Thus, she expected her students/children to trust her opinions and totally obey her words. The fusion of the teacher-student relationship and parent-child relationship reflects how Chinese cultural values play important roles in schools in Taiwan. Various Influences: Foreign Cultures

Besides Chinese cultural values, Taiwan is also influenced by Western, especially North American, perspectives and practices. Between 2012 to 2021, the United States of America was the most popular country for Taiwanese students to study abroad, up to 20% to 52.85% of all students of the year (Ministry of Education, 2021). While Korean and Japanese pop cultures are endorsed by young people, North American cultures and practices still heavily impact Taiwanese society. Take counseling psychology training, for example. While international collaborations and exchanges among East Asian countries and/ or between Mainland China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong are popular, and the indigenous psychology in Taiwan has grown its professional identity, the majority of counseling training programs are still heavily influenced by European-American white cultural values (Chen, 2017). Various Influences: Religious Factors

As to religious and spiritual diversity, 80% of the population believe in some form of folk religion, in addition to 35% Buddhists and 33% Taoists (US Department of State, 2019). While Taiwanese people enjoy the freedom of

90  Hung Chiao and Te-Sheng Chang religion and can be religiously active in their daily life, religion-related materials are rarely found in textbooks. Indeed, there are many schools funded by religious groups, and they can include religious practice in their school-based curriculum and daily rituals. Religion-based schools may take specific positions on specific issues. For example, Taiwan Christian Universities and Colleges Alliance, which is organized by 17 Christian universities and colleges in Taiwan, stated that heterosexual marriage is the only acceptable marriage for the church in response to TAPCPR’s 2012 diversified family formation bill (ETtoday, 2013). Tragic History Pushed the Progress of Gender Equity in Taiwan

On November 30, 1996, a famous feminist politician, Wan-ru Peng was murdered. Her death was a big wake-up call for Taiwanese society. Thus, the Sexual Assault Crime Prevention Act, which includes an article on gender equity education implementation in schools, was passed within a month. Therefore, the Ministry of Education Two Gender Equity Education Committee was established in 1997, which led to the development of the Investigation and Intervention Principles of Sexual Harassment and Sexual Assault in College and Elementary and Middle School Systems in 1999 (abolished in 2005). On April 20, 2004, Yung-Chih Yeh, a ninth-grade young man who was often bullied due to his feminine gender expression, was found dead in the school toilet (CommonWealth Parenting, 2022). People hypothesized that he often went to the bathroom during class time to avoid bullies after class. Unfortunately, he had an accident and no one noticed. At the same time, the Ministry of Education Two Gender Equity Education Commission was drafting the Two Gender Equity Education Act (Gender Equity Education Act, 2022). Yeh’s death caught people’s attention on SOGI students’ safety in schools; thus, the Commission revised the draft and included sexual orientation, gender expression, and gender identity. The act renamed Gender Equity Education Act (GEEA) came out in 2004. This act is the most important legal foundation to protect all students from being discriminated, differentially treated against their gender and sex, and to receive gender equity education in schools at all educational levels. This act is also the strongest legal support for SOGI students in schools. The Legal Foundation of Gender Equity: GEEA

There are seven chapters in this act. The first chapter, general provisions, describes the main purpose of this act, which is “to promote substantive gender equality, eliminate gender discrimination, uphold human dignity, and improve and establish education resources and environment of gender equality” (Gender Equity Education Act, 2022, Article 1)” It also defines gender equity education as “to generate respect for gender diversity, eliminate gender discrimination, and promote substantive gender equality through education”

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Taiwan  91 (Gender Equity Education Act, 2022, Article 2). This definition is very important because gender equity education was once distortedly interpreted as SOGI education that seriously confuses children and young adolescents and turns them into SOGI (Xianyig Tseng National Referendum, 2018). In Article 2, sexual harassment is defined as “unwelcome remarks or conducts that carry explicitly or implicitly a sexual or gender discriminating connotation and thereby adversely affect the other party’s human dignity, or the opportunity or performance of her or his learning or work” or “a conduct of sexual or gendered nature that is served as the condition for oneself or others to gain or lose rights or interests in learning or work.” As to sexual bullying refers to “engaging in ridicule, attacks, or threats directed at another person’s gender characteristics, gender temperaments, sexual orientation, or gender identity using verbal, physical, or other forms of violence.” These definitions are very important because often misconduct and/or “jokes” by teachers and students in schools are performed directly toward gender characteristics, gender temperaments, and/or sexual orientation. Suppose either side of the parties involves students. In that case, the student can request the Gender Equity Education Committee of the school to investigate the case and perform educational interventions for those who violate the act. Furthermore, in Chapter 4, the act mandates all school personnel to report suspected incidents within 24 hours. It also identifies standard time lines and methodologies for investigation, remedy, and appeal. The act provides a solid legal foundation to protect students’ legal rights so that they can use them to protect themselves from gender and sexual orientation–related biases, prejudice, and discrimination. Chapters 2 and 3 of the Act regulate schools to provide an educational environment and resources, curricula, teaching materials, and methodologies that are safe, fair, and friendly to everyone, including SOGI diverse populations. Article 17 even indicates that elementary and junior high schools must provide at least four hours of courses or activities on gender equity education each semester. Therefore, it is every schoolteacher’s, not limited to school counselors’, duty to provide continuing gender equity education, as well as an equity, diverse, and inclusive environment in schools. What are the penalties for violation of the act? Depending on the severity of the violation, the perpetrator might receive a combination of the following treatments: a written or oral apology to the victim, at least eight hours of gender equity education, and other types of educational interventions if the violation was not of a severe nature; formal reprimand, dismissal, suspension, or nonrenewal of appointment; discharge from employment; and termination of a contractual relationship may be determined if the violation was of a severe nature. Therefore, schoolteachers, staff, and administrative personnel might lose their jobs, as well as receive further severe legal consequences when violating the act in a serious nature. School committees that refuse to mandate reporting the suspended cases would also violate the act and receive financial punishment (documented in Chapter 6). If the omission of a required report

92  Hung Chiao and Te-Sheng Chang and/or alteration of evidence causes further incidents, the person can be discharged from employment. In sum, GEEA is a key legal foundation of gender equity protection and key guidance for gender equity practices in schools. No discriminatory practices are allowed in schools. However, does it guarantee the safety of all students, including SOGI students in schools in Taiwan? In the following section, we will present empirical studies of SOGI students’ school life in Taiwan. SOGI Minorities and School Life in Taiwan Campus Climate Survey

A national online survey done by Taiwan Tongzhi Hotline Association in 2020 presented SOGI students’ (n = 1223; biological female at birth 53.3%, intersex 0.7%) school experiences. Among all the participants, 69.3% identify themselves as cisgender, 6.9% transgender, 11.6% nonbinary/fluid, and 12.2% questioning/searching. As to sexual orientation, 56.6% of participants are gays and lesbians, 25.3% are bisexual, followed by pansexual 3.8%, asexual 2.4%, queer 2%, and questioning 10%. As to their educational status, 33.7% were in middle school and 66.3% were in high school. The survey first asked SOGI students about their campus experiences. Overall, 35.6% of participants felt unsafe on campus because of their sexual orientation; thus, 49.9% and 43.5% of students wanted to escape from school gatherings or extracurricular activities. Of the participants, 4.9% reported at least one day absent from school, and 7.6% had the experience of transferring schools. In terms of the teaching content, 30% of all participants reported not learning anything related to SOGI in schools; in contrast, 55.8% of participants mentioned SOGI issues taught in gender education-related courses. When addressing SOGI issues in class, 44.5% of them felt somewhat very uncomfortable. Another example is that SOGI students may feel unsafe at school and be absent; thus, they are vulnerable to punishment due to their absence. Even more were punished or missed school the less sense of belongingness and positive connections they had toward schools. On the contrary, the more supportive personnel they identified in schools, the more SOGI students were inclined to feel accepted by the schools; thus, the students tended to have a higher sense of belongingness, and not feel unsafe on campus. Although they may not always receive support from schools, most of them (92.1%) could name at least one teacher/staff member who supports SOGI minorities, and 27.7% of participants believed that their school administration is supportive of SOGI students. Besides school personnel, over three-fourths of participants know at least one SOGI friend in school, and over 20.9% of participants know at least six! In other words, most SOGI students can name at least one teacher/staff/friend in school who they know are SOGI friendly. However, only 8.1% of students stated that they have SOGI student groups in schools.

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Taiwan  93 Harassment and Bullying in Schools

In the Taiwan Tongzhi Hotline Association’s campus climate survey (2020), almost 19% of participants reported not being accepted by their peers, while 56.6% of them observed their peers accepting SOGI populations. More specifically, over 40% of participants reported often or frequently hearing the word “gay” in a negative way. Besides being belittled by peer students, 68.6% indicated that they had heard homophobic statements from teachers or staff in schools. Over 62% of participants reported experiencing verbal harassment due to their sexual orientation, gender, or gender expression. When experiencing those incidents, did they report them to school personnel? Less than half of students reported that they do not support a belief in teachers’/staffs’ competency to deal with this situation (53.4%), nor were they ready to come out to the public (48.6%). Among those who did report, 53.5% indicated that the school personnel provided effective responses, including emotional support (47.2%), conversations with perpetrators and stopping their behaviors (46.2%), punishing perpetrators, and educating all students about anti-bullying knowledge. A shockingly high statistic is that almost half (46.4%) of the participants reported being punished in schools. Some students indicated that they were punished when reporting harassment events to school personnel. If they did not tell schoolteachers about their SOGI identities, which might be the reason for harassment, teachers may see it as two parties having fights with each other. Thus, teachers were more likely to punish the invisible SOGI victims than the perpetrators. Do schools have any anti-bullying or anti-sexual harassment policies that SOGI students are aware of ? While the fact that there are national anti-bullying and anti-sexual harassment policies, 38% of all participants reported that they were not familiar with or were unsure of such policies. The study also found a significant difference between perceived anti-bullying policies and school personnel interventions. Students aware of anti-bullying policies reported more anti-bullying interventions from teachers and staff. Wang et al. (2019) studied 500 Taiwanese gay and bisexual men’s primary and secondary school experiences of traditional and cyberbullying. In regard to sexuality-related bullying, the investigation reported that 38% of participants experienced traditional and 32.6% of participants experienced cyberbullying. In addition, 34.8% of all participants indicated that they were bullied due to gender nonconformity, and 17% due to their sexual orientation. In cyberspace, 27% of them are victims because of their gender nonconformity and 22.4% because of their sexual orientation. In Yen’s research, 39.8% of participants reported experiencing harassment when they were in primary schools and 61.8% of participants in grades 7–9. For those who were at primary schools, 33.2% and 16.8% continued to experience harassment in grade levels 7–9 and 10–12. Regarding the 435 participants who reported traditional harassment, they experienced harassment at afterschool classes, tutoring schools, and part-time workplaces. An estimated 26.2% of participants indicated that they experienced harassment at multiple sites

94  Hung Chiao and Te-Sheng Chang (Lin et al., 2018). While harassment was significantly associated with low academic performance, satisfaction in all school stages, and multisite homophobic harassment at grade levels 9–12 was significantly associated with the tendency to miss classes or schools. The study found that sexual minority youths who experienced persistent homophobic harassment throughout their middle school lives were more likely to be satisfied with their academic performance than their peers who experienced similar harassment only in later school life. The researchers suggested that pursuing academic success might be used as a culturally appreciated and encouraged way of coping with earning respect and developing better status in schools. Transgender in Schools

An investigation (n = 576) of transgender experiences (TAPCPR, 2020) reveals that 59.65% of participants experienced unfriendly treatment in their family of origin, as well as in school for 47.68% of them. Most of that unfriendly treatment was oral discrimination (94.82%) and emotional violence (48.48%). For those who reported unfriendly treatment in schools, they referred to oral harassment, bullying, and interpersonal exclusion by classmates (76.11%); rigid and unreasonable dress codes (62.35%); discriminatory language by administrators and teachers in public announcements or in classes (49.8%); and inappropriate textbook materials (39.68%). Most people experienced those uncomfortable experiences in junior (74.09%) and senior (59.92%) high schools, followed by primary schools (43.32%) and college years (28.34%). When experiencing those uncomfortable incidents, the majority of participants (75.3%) indicated that they did not do anything, compared with 13.77% and 9.31% of participants reporting that they asked friends for help or used formal complaint channels (i.e., teachers or Gender Equity Education Committee). It is heartbreaking to see that 19.84% reported missing classes as their way of coping with unpleasant situations, and 16.6% of all participants either left or dropped out of school eventually. The results echoed the prior campus climate survey (Taiwan Tongzhi Hotline Association, 2020). The friendly and safe campus climate is critical to keeping our SOGI students in educational systems. Besides practicing GEEA, we need to invest more to protect our students on campus. Practices in Taiwanese Schools In sum, the results of the current study suggest that the SOGI-positive teaching materials in classes, visible school anti-bullying and anti-harassment policies, the presence of SOGI student groups on campus, and the SOGI-friendly school administrators, teachers, and staff, are key factors to the more safe and supportive school climate for SOGI students (Taiwan Tongzhi Hotline Association, 2020). But how are we training teachers and school counselors to become SOGI students’ allies, to create and maintain a safe space for SOGI students?

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Taiwan  95 Teachers' Training and Teaching Resources in SOGI Issues

Kuo et al. (2019) studied teacher education curricula between 2015 and 2016 at 53 universities that provided training for future teachers. Only one-third of universities offered gender equity-related courses, and most of them were electives. Among all students, only 1.86% were able to take one gender equity education course. Based on their report, students may receive gender-related knowledge in the two-credit course Seminar in Educational Issues as one of the many topics to discuss. In other words, the scarcity of gender equity education in teacher education may be the origin of difficulties in having SOGIfriendly teachers and administrators in schools. What about continuing education for teachers? The GEEA requires schools to provide gender equity training in staff and teachers pre-service training, orientation training, and in-service education program. Furthermore, it also mandates such training for educational administrators in the preparation program. However, Hsieh (2019) indicated that teachers may lack motivation or interest in participating in those trainings because they think the topics are “too difficult,” “no time,” or “not necessary/irrelevant to my teaching subject.” Chih (2021) suggested various ways to incorporate gender issues and gender equity education into middle school geography courses. In fact, the National Academy for Educational Research (2020) published many K–12 teaching guidelines and resources that incorporate gender equity educational topics into every subject for teachers. Difficulties Delivering SOGI Materials in Schools

Chu interviewed civics and social education teachers about their teaching experiences of SOGI issues in high schools (2018). Teachers reported that they observed the following phenomenon: (a) homogenizing sexual minority issues and simplifying teaching goals into antidiscrimination, anti-stigmatization, and base knowledge of gay and lesbian issues without addressing bisexual, transgender, cross-dressing, and sexual liberation; (b) precise split positions between pro- and anti-SOGI in the name of religion and generation, which leave very little room for collaborative conversations and strengthen division; (c) choosing to remain silent when experiencing conflicts in values and not willing to speak up. Therefore, a fair and respectful discussion with critical thinking is difficult to create because both teachers and students want to maintain a “safe” classroom. The results of Chu’s study are reflections of the conservative education environment in Taiwan. Wong (2019) observed that schools seemed to be “unusually quiet” during the enthusiastic public debate on same-sex marriage and the SOGI education referendum in 2018. In order to avoid any “sensitive discussion on gender issues” and to be “politically neutral,” schools tend to follow “do not ask, do not tell, do not discuss” guidelines that further marginalized SOGI issues. A qualitative study investigating LGB teachers in schools also

96  Hung Chiao and Te-Sheng Chang reports a conservative education environment that limits LGB teachers’ willingness to come out at school (Chiao et al., 2022). However, the participants unanimously expressed their motivation in promoting gender equity in their teaching and counseling for students. While most of them did not reveal their LGB identities, they incorporated gender equity content in their teaching. Those who came out to SOGI students indicated that they only did so to support students’ needs. School Counselors' Training in SOGI Issues

As to the professional ethical code of the major three counseling psychology professional organizations, Taiwan Guidance and Counseling Association (2001), Taiwan Counseling Psychology Association (2021), and Taiwan Counseling Psychologist Union (2020) all include gender identity and sexual orientation in their nondiscrimination policies. Therefore, gender equity is endorsed by the counseling profession. However, Chiang (2017) reviewed 14 counseling programs’ curricula that contains key words of multicultural, gender, and LGBTQ+ in 2014–2016, only nine programs listing such courses at the undergraduate level and 11 at graduate level. There are only two programs listing SOGI-specific courses at the graduate level. The very limited training in gender and SOGI issues may not provide enough training for future counselors. Chiang believed that the core values of counselor education should align with SOGI-friendly and gender-sensitive attitudes. Thus, she suggested that “acknowledging and situating sexual orientation in the context of intersectional identities and not presenting the issue as a single dimension (p.13).” Liu’s (2017) chapter titled “Gender Diversity in Counseling” is the first textbook material that introduces SOGI issues in Taiwan. It provides a good review of Western literature on SOGI research and a discussion of unique Taiwanese SOGI issues in Chinese cultural contexts. Besides textbooks, there were few empirical studies on multicultural counseling and SOGI issues published in journals (Lin, 2018). We definitely need more theoretical and empirical studies on topics of gender identity and sexual orientation to build solid training foundations. School Counselors as Allies in Schools

Chuang’s (2018) study recorded gays’ and lesbians’ complaints about their middle school to college school guidance and counseling experiences, including homophobic counselors, counselors’ lack of proper or updated training in SOGI issues, and limited resources from individual counseling without systematic support. Even when guidance and counseling services show their willingness to support SOGI students, students may still assume heterosexual counselors will not be able to fully understand their situations and remain defensive. While none of the participants in Chuang’s (2018) study had experiences of being referred due to their sexual minority identities, many of them

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Taiwan  97 heard stories of inappropriate referrals from their friends, which heightened their impression of heterosexual counselors’ irresponsibility and incompetency in SOGI counseling. While there may be counselors who do not have enough training or have homophobic attitudes, in Wen and Chiao’s (2023) study, LGB counseling psychologists discussed how carefully they work with SOGI clients and evaluate clients’ identity development stages to decide whether to come out to their clients or not. They also indicated that coming out to their clients as a SOGI professional or self-disclosure may be necessary, depending on their clients’ clinical needs. The researchers suggested that both counselors with SOGI and heterosexual identities shall receive training in multicultural counseling and SOGI minority issues. Suggestions for Future Directions

Taiwan has gone this far in promoting gender equity in educational systems and society by implementing GEEA and legalizing same-sex marriage. However, there are still social injustice incidents and systematic discrimination happening in schools and in society, such as oral, physical, and cyber discrimination, bullies, interpersonal and relational marginalization, prohibition of assisted reproduction techniques, transnational marriage, and same-sex couple adoption. Since education is the foundation of societal advancement and civilization, more educational reform in gender identity and sexual orientation issues shall be promoted to create a friendlier and more sensitive cultural context for all students. We hope to call for more social justice–oriented training for schoolteachers and counselors, not only in sporadic continuing education courses but also integrated into teacher and counselor education curricula design. It is also an important agenda for educational leadership to consider. Future educational leaders shall view SOGI issues from a more affirmative perspective and protect sexual minority students as one of their priorities. Continuous campus climate surveys and evaluation of gender equity practices are also keys to ensuring we are on the right track to meeting students’ learning needs and maintaining a safe educational environment for every student on campus. References Academy for Educational Research. (2020). 十二年國教課程綱要 [12-year compulsory education curriculum outlines.] https://www.naer.edu.tw/PageSyllabus?fid=52 Act for Implementation of J.Y. Interpretation No. 748. (2019). https://law.moj.gov.tw/ ENG/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=B0000008 Assisted Reproduction Act. (2018). https://law.moj.gov.tw/ENG/LawClass/LawAll. aspx?pcode=L0070024 Bih, H.-D. (2019, May 13). 1996是台灣神奇的一年 [1996 is a magical year for Taiwan.] Taipei Society. https://www.taipeisociety.org/node/784

98  Hung Chiao and Te-Sheng Chang Chen, P.-H. (2017). 台灣是多元文化的社會 [Taiwan is a multicultural society.] In P.-H. Chen (Ed.), Multicultural counseling in Taiwan (pp. 3–26). Psychological Publishing. Chiang, C.-M. (2017). 涵納差異與攜手前行:同志友善與性別敏感諮商教育之反思與 在地實踐 [Include differences and forge ahead: Reflections and local practices in gender-sensitive and LGBT-friendly counseling education and training in Taiwan.] The Archive of Guidance and Counseling, 39(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.7040/JGC Chiao, H., Liao, S-Y., Chiu, Y-C., Lin, Y-T., & Chen, S-Y. (2022). Dear students, in fact, I’m …: LGBQ teachers’ decisions of whether to come out at work and their teaching experiences, Bulletin of Educational Psychology, 53(3), 617–642. https://doi. org/10.6251/BEP.202203_53(3).0005 Chih, H.-C. (2021). 性別平等議題融入地理課程的建議 [Recommendations for integrating gender equality issues into geography curricula.] Gender Equity Education Quarterly, 95, 39–44. https://www.gender.edu.tw/web/upload/society/Magazine/ NO95%20多元文化、性別與家庭_v2.s.pdf Chu, C. H. (2018). 在爭議之中教學:高中公民與社會科教師的同志議題教學經驗詮釋 [Teaching in dispute: The experience interpretation of the teaching LGBTQ issue of civics and society teachers in high school.] National Chiayi University Journal of Educational Research, 40, 99–132. Chuang, J. C. (2018). 學校同志諮商輔導的實況與困境探討 [A study on current situation and difficulties in the school counseling and guidance for LGBT students.] The Archive of Guidance and Counseling, 40(1), 45–68. https://doi.org/10.7040/JGC Coalition for the Happiness of our Next Generation (2022, April 1). In Wikipedia. https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/下一代幸福聯盟 Common Wealth Parenting. (2022, March 28). 永遠15歲的玫瑰少年-葉永鋕:你還記得 這位孤身倒臥廁所血泊逝世的少年嗎? [Everlasting 15-year-old rose boy, Yung-Chih Yeh: Do you still remember this young man who died in a pool of blood in the school toilet alone?] https://www.parenting.com.tw/article/5092375 Constitutional Court. (2017). No. 748 [same-sex marriage case] https://cons.judicial. gov.tw/en/docdata.aspx?fid=100&id=310929 Cultime. (2021, June 3). Girl Friends bi-monthly journals. Taiwan Cultural Memory Bank. https://memory.culture.tw/Home/Detail?Id=607900&IndexCode=Culture_Object ETtoday. (2013, November 30). 17基督教大學聯合聲明:尊重同志但反對同性婚 [17 Christian universities joint statement: Respect gays but oppose same-sex marriage] https://www.ettoday.net/news/20131130/302525.htm#ixzz7Rvl85lgv Gender Equity Education Act. (2022). https://law.moj.gov.tw/ENG/LawClass/LawAll. aspx?pcode=H0080067 Guardian Family Coalition. (2022, March 11). In Wikipedia. https://zh.wikipedia.org/ wiki/台灣宗教團體愛護家庭大聯盟 Hsieh, M.-C. (2019). 性別平等教育是我的菠菜:一個澎湖輔導員的喃喃自語 [Gender equality education is my spinach: Mumblings from a Penghu counselor.] Gender Equity Education Quarterly, 88, 20–23. https://www.gender.edu.tw/web/upload/ society/Magazine/NO.88%20危機還是轉機的性別平等教育%20性平法15週 年再檢視.pdf Hsieh, M.-Y. (2017, September 3). 23年前北一女學生相偕燒炭自殺震撼社會 同運團 體展出遺書重現當年絕望 [23 years ago, a female student from Taipei First Girls High School committed suicide by burning charcoal together. SOGI groups exhibited suicide note to present the despair in the past.] The Storm Media. https://www. storm.mg/article/325509?page=1

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Taiwan  99 Hsu, S.-C., & Yeh, K.-H. (2019). 華人人際及群際關係主題研究的回顧與前瞻 [A review of Chinese indigenous research on interpersonal and intergroup relations.] Indigenous Psychological Research in Chinese Societies, 51, 33–88. https://doi. org/10.6254/IPRCS.201906_(51).0002 Hwang, K.-K. (1987). Face and favor: The Chinese power game. American Journal of Sociology, 92(4), 944–974. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2780044 Kuo, L.-A., Wang, D.-W., Li, H.-C., Yang, A.-E., & Hsu, T.-C. (2019). 大學師資培育中 性別平等教育的實施現況與反省 [The implementation status and reflection of gender equity education in centers for teacher education in universities.] Gender Equity Education Quarterly, 86, 18–23. https://www.gender.edu.tw/web/upload/society/ Magazine/NO.86同婚後的教育想像.pdf Lin, S.-C. (2018). 多元文化諮商之研究 [Studies of multicultural counseling.] In W. Xiao, & H. S. Tien (Eds.), The 60th anniversary of Taiwan guidance profession (pp. 188–191). Psychological Publishing. Lin, H.-C., Hu, H.-F., Chen, M.-H., Ko, N.-Y., Hsiao, R. C., Yen, C.-N., & Yen, C.-F. (2018). Persistent and multisite homophobic harassment during childhood and adolescence and its association with school difficulties in gay and bisexual men in Taiwan. Archives of Clinical Psychiatry, 45(4), 94–99. https://doi. org/10.1590/60830000000166 Liu, A.-C. (2017). 多元性別諮商 [Gender diversity in counseling.] In P.-H. Chen (Ed.), Multicultural Counseling in Taiwan (pp. 411–454). Psychological Publishing. Ministry of Education. (2021). 各年度我國學生赴主要留學國家留學簽證人數統計表 [Statistics of major countries and numbers of students applying for student visa from 2012 to 2021]. https://depart.moe.edu.tw/ed2500/News_Content.aspx?n=2D25F01E 87D6EE17&sms=4061A6357922F45A&s=EBACDD1821598B54 Ministry of Interior. (2019). 人口統計資料:出生數、死亡數按性別及結、離婚對數按 區域別分 [Demographic statistics: Population and marriage/divorce (by registration date)]. https://www.ris.gov.tw/app/portal/346 National Academy for Educational Research. (2020). 十二年國民基本教育課程綱要議 題融入說明手冊 [The subjects integration instruction manual of the twelve-year national basic education curriculum outline]. https://stv.naer.edu.tw/classic/data/ course_manual/A/議題融入說明手冊(定稿版).pdf National Referendum. (2018). 曾獻瑩領銜提出「你是否同意在國民教育階段內(國中 及國小)，教育部及各級學校不應對學生實施性別平等教育法施行細則所定之同志 教育?全國性公民投票案 [Xianyig Tseng proposed “Do you agree that Ministry of Education and Schools at all levels should not implement SOGI education based on the requirement of Enforcement Rules for the Gender Equity Education Act?”]. https://web.cec.gov.tw/preview/cms/27240 Sexual Assault Crime Prevention Act. (2015). https://law.moj.gov.tw/ENG/LawClass/ LawAll.aspx?pcode=D0080079 Taiwan Alliance to Promote Civil Partnership Right. (2020, March 31). 2020跨性別人 權處境調查報告 [Transgender human rights situation investigation report]. https:// tapcpr.org/main-topics/gender/2020跨性別人權處境調查報告 Taiwan Alliance to Promote Civil Partnership Right. (2021, July 2). 長庚跨性別宿舍小 雯案:台灣伴侶權益推動聯盟聲明 [Chang Gung University dorm transgender girl, Wen’s case: The statement of TAPCPR]. https://tapcpr.org/hot-news/pressrelease/2021/07/02/長庚小雯案伴盟聲明 Taiwan Counseling Psychologist Union. (2020, November 12). 社團法人中華民國諮商 心理師公會全國聯合會諮商心理師專業倫理守則 [Taiwan Counseling Psychologist

100  Hung Chiao and Te-Sheng Chang Union professional code of ethics]. https://www.tcpu.org.tw/legal-and-ethicalcomplaints/5-professional-ethics-code-for-counseling-psychologists-of-the-nationalfederation-of-counseling-psychologists-association-of-the-republic-of-china.html Taiwan Counseling Psychology Association. (2021, November 13). 諮商心理專業倫理 守則 [Counseling psychology professional code of ethics]. http://www.twcpa.org.tw/ images/ogroup2111020125130244.pdf Taiwan Equality Campaign. (n.d.). About us. https://equallove.tw/en/about-us Taiwan Guidance and Counseling Association. (2001, November 16). 台灣輔導與諮商 學會諮商專業倫理守則 [Taiwan Guidance and Counseling Association Counseling Profession code of ethics]. http://www.guidance.org.tw/ethic_001.html Taiwan Tongzhi Hotline Association. (2020). 2020台灣同志學生校園經驗調查報告 [2020 School Climate Survey on LGBTQ+ Students in Taiwan]. https://drive.google. com/file/d/1xn0maG53M2-TKB3lHzk7qjtF2zp10TQl/view Taiwan Tongzhi Hotline Association. (n.d.). About hotline. https://hotline.org.tw/ english/209 Tong-Kwang Light House Presbyterian Church. (n.d.). 同光簡史 [Brief history]. https:// www.tkchurch.org/brief-history US Department of State. (2019). 2019 Report on international religious freedom: Taiwan. https://www.state.gov/reports/2019-report-on-international-religious-freedom/ taiwan/ Wang, C.-C., Hsiao, R.C., Yen, C.-F. (2019). Victimization of traditional and cyber bullying during childhood and their correlates among adult gay and bisexual men in Taiwan: A retrospective study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(23), 4634. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16234634 Wen, Y.-C. & Chiao, H. (2023). 同志諮商師的出櫃與自我揭露:同志諮商經驗與策略 [Tongzhi counseling psychologists' coming out and self-disclosure in counseling: Working experiences and strategies with LGBTQ clients]. Chinese Journal of Guidance and Counseling, 119–158. Wong, L.-S. (2019). 踉蹌前行的校園性別教育: 2014-2019國小校園的性別平等教育觀 察 [Staggering school gender education: Observations on gender equity education in elementary schools from 2014 to 2019]. Gender Equity Education Quarterly, 88, 16– 20. https://www.gender.edu.tw/web/upload/society/Magazine/NO.88%20危機還是轉 機的性別平等教育%20性平法15週年再檢視.pdf Yeh, K.-H. (2009). 華人孝道雙園模型研究的回顧與前瞻 [The dual filial piety model in Chinese culture: Retrospect and prospects.] Indigenous Psychological Research in Chinese Societies, 32, 101–148. https://doi.org/10.6254/2009.32.101

6

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and School Life in Hong Kong Diana K. Kwok

Introduction Worldwide, there has been a dramatic social change toward challenging prejudice against individuals from sexual and gender-minority communities, such as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender/trans, questioning/queer individuals. Regardless of global and regional human rights movements, in Hong Kong, a few themes relating to sexual and transgender equality have been observed, which require the attention of educators, practitioners, and policymakers. First, sexual prejudice, heterosexism, and transgender prejudice against sexually and gender-minority communities persist. Legal framework and human rights concerns against sexual and gender-based discrimination remain inaccessible for sexual and gender minorities, especially the youth population in schools or other educational contexts. Students need support for the expression of sexual orientation and gender identity/identities (SOGI). Unfortunately, there is no guarantee that sexual- and gender-minority (SOGI minority) students will be supported in an educational context of affirmative practice and rights-based sexuality education in Hong Kong where gender recognition acts and antidiscrimination ordinances have not been legislated (Kwok, 2022; 2021a). In general, an antidiscriminatory legal system, inclusive school policy, and programs to combat homophobic and transphobic bullying are nonexistent or insufficient (Kwok, 2016, 2017; Kwok & Kwok, 2022; Kwok, Winter, & Yuen, 2012; Kwok & Wu, 2015). Additionally, the cultural and religious contexts in which educational facilities are situated are not favorable for reducing prejudice against SOGI minority students (Kwok, 2019; 2022; Kwok & Kwok, 2022; UNDP & USAID, 2014). Likewise, sexual and gender diversity education has only been considered lightly in schools, and rights-based education and practice have received even less attention (Kwok, 2016, 2017; Kwok et al., 2012; Kwok, 2016; Kwok & Kwok, 2018; Kwok & Kwok, 2022). Based on this unique social-cultural context, this chapter aims to provide background information on Hong Kong’s cultural context and to highlight the prejudice experienced by SOGI minority students. This is based on a synthesis of local and international publications, as well as curriculum discussion. Recommendations are made for facilitating an inclusive educational environment. DOI: 10.4324/9781003430414-6

102  Diana K. Kwok Minorities and Cultural Context in Hong Kong Society Hong Kong: Western and Chinese Traditions

Hong Kong is a cosmopolitan international city with a mix of Western and Chinese traditions. Previously a British colony, it is currently under the sovereignty of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) – Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR). Over seven million people live in the city. Approximately 92% of Hong Kong residents are ethnic Chinese. There are also non-Chinese ethnic minorities, such as South Asians (HKSAR Government, 2022). Around 43% of the Chinese residents participate in religious and cultural activities, for example, Confucianism, Taoism, Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, and Christianity. Numerous health, school/educational, and welfare facilities have been established by these religious bodies (Kwok & Wu, 2015). In a multicultural city influenced by both its Chinese culture and the British colonial days, it is inevitable that cultural forces stemming from both Confucianism and Christian religious values combine to impact upon manifestations of heterosexism and genderism (Kwok & Kwok, 2022; Kwok & Wu, 2015; Winter & King, 2010). Cultural Forces in Hong Kong

In Hong Kong Chinese society, the family value of “filial piety” is a strongly emphasized theme. Filial piety stresses the continuation of the family name, with dogmatic obligations within Chinese families, and failure to reproduce is symbolized as an act of filial disobedience and even as a calamity. Additionally, within the family system, “face” is seen as a vital component, hence individual needs/desires are not given priority over collective “family face” (Hann, 2000). In the case of sexual and gender minorities, having sexual orientation and gender identities/expressions that are different from the social norm or their assigned sex is considered a violation of filial piety (Xiao). This is the cultural principle of Chinese Confucianism, relating to respect for one’s parents – to procreate in order to carry on the family title and to avoid harm to one’s own body (Ma, 1999). Trans, gender nonconforming, or gay children who are not compliant with family obligations and parental values are often seen as morally wrong or bringing shame to their parents and family members (Kwok & Kwok, 2022; Kwok & Wu, 2015). Adding to the impacts of these Chinese family cultural values, Christianity has had a strong influence on Chinese sexual prejudice against sexual minorities. Colonization by the British in the 19th century brought to Hong Kong a massive wave of religious missionaries (Ng & Ma, 2006). For some Christians in Hong Kong, monogamous, heterosexual, and life-long marriage appears to be a prototype for life. Any lack of conformity with this prototype, including same-sex affections and sexual desires or nonconforming gender identities, may be disallowed or could be seen as immoral, wrongful, and sinful

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Hong Kong  103 (Kwok, 2019; Kwok, 2021b; Kwok & Kwok, 2022; Kwok & Wu, 2015; Ma, 1999; Ng & Ma, 2006). The proposal to set up an antidiscrimination ordinance based on SOGI has met with strong opposition. The arguments against it center on nonheterosexual and transgender individuals, and whether they have to be acknowledged as family units and have the usual citizens’ rights of access to marriage, adoption, and social services, etc. There is a citizen’s rights provision for some minority groups; racial minorities and people with disabilities, including students with special needs, are protected under the antidiscrimination laws, enforced by the Equal Opportunities Commission (2022). However, as mentioned earlier, the antidiscrimination ordinance to protect SOGI minority people is nonexistent. Expression of SOGI in Hong Kong Cultural Identities/Languages

Sexual- and gender-minority communities in Hong Kong have been more visible and vocal in current years through community events, media interviews, and public discussion of legal reforms due to global and regional human rights movements (Kwok & Wu, 2015). “Tongzhi” (同志), a cultural identity that means “comrade,” is preferred over the term “homosexuality” within the Chinese LGBQ communities. Members of transgender or trans communities are more public about advocating their equal opportunities rights due to the rise of human rights awareness in the public, as well as among the sexual and gender diversity communities in Hong Kong (Kwok et al., 2013). An umbrella term “kwa-sing-bit” (跨性別), meaning “across gender boundaries,” has emerged to represent diverse trans identities within Hong Kong society (Kwok, 2021a). Other languages, such as “kwa-zai” (跨仔) – trans man/trans boy, “kwa-nu”( 跨女) – trans woman/trans girl, “fei-ji-jyun-sing-bit-ze” (非二元性 别者) – gender nonbinary individuals, and “sing-bit-lau-dung-ze” (性別流動 者), meaning people with fluid gender identities, have also become known to the public through social media and local newspaper publications (Crossing the Gender Boundaries, 2019; Trans Boy and Trans Girl, 2021). Sexual Prejudice and Transprejudice: SOGI in Hong Kong

Despite more visibility, sexual and gender minorities at the same time have frequently been encountering prejudice (sexual and transprejudice) with no lawful protection. Sexual prejudice (Herek, 2000) refers to “heterosexuals’ negative attitudes toward (a) homosexual behaviour, (b) people with a homosexual or bisexual orientation, and (c) communities of gay, lesbian, bisexual people” (p.1), and transprejudice (King, Winter & Webster, 2009) is the “negative valuing, stereotyping and discriminatory attitudes toward and treatment” of gender nonconforming, nonheteronormative, and noncisgender individuals (p. 20). Institutionally, sexual prejudice is promoted through social systems,

104  Diana K. Kwok organizational policies, and practices so that heteronormative values, attitudes, and behaviors are reinforced (Butler et al., 2003). According to Snively et al. (2004), negative attitudes toward nonheterosexuality are endorsed or supported by individuals who stand with “conservative values, especially in regard to religion and gender roles” (p. 65). Two other concepts are helpful as well to understand the cultural context in Hong Kong, regarding the life experiences of sexual and gender minorities. The first one is heterosexism (Herek, 2007), which is described as “a cultural ideology embodied in institutional practices that work to the disadvantage of sexual minority groups even in the absence of individual prejudice or discrimination” (p. 907). The presumption of universal heterosexuality, the inferiority of nonheterosexuals, and the structural denial, denigration, and stigmatization of sexual minorities are habituated at institutional and cultural levels, as well as at the individual level (Kwok, 2016). Sexual minorities in Hong Kong are culturally invisible due to the nature of their sexual orientation, which is subtle, and also because of the high risk of sexual prejudice against them ( Hong Kong Christian Institute, 2014; Kwok & Wu, 2015; Kwok, 2016; Kwok, 2022). This encourages sexual minorities to conceal their sexual identity almost as an act of denial of their existence; for example, heterosexuals may see individuals with same-sex sexual attraction and behaviors as mentally deficient (Moleiro & Pinto, 2015) or deviant (Kahn & Gorski, 2016). The second one is genderism (Hill & Willoughby, 2005), which has also been adopted to describe negative reactions toward transgender individuals. This is “an ideology that reinforces the negative evaluation of gender nonconformity or an incongruence between sex and gender” (Hill & Willoughby, 2005, p. 534). Those who hold this idea “believe that people who do not conform to sociocultural expectations of gender are pathological” (p. 534). It is also a “source of social oppression and psychological shame, such that it can be imposed on a person, but also that a person may internalize these beliefs” (p. 534). For transgender people or gender minorities, manifestations of transprejudice and/or genderism may create minority stress (Meyer, 2003), which oppresses them at institutional and personal levels (Testa et al., 2015, 2017; Wernick et al., 2014). Sexual Prejudice and Sexual Minority (LGBQ) Communities

In regard to the manifestation of sexual prejudice, in one government study on Hong Kong citizens’ attitudes toward nonheterosexuality, 41% of over 2,000 study informants, who were Hong Kong residents of Chinese origin, regarded sexual minorities as being psychologically abnormal (HKSAR Government, 2006). Even though homosexuality is not perceived by professionals as a mental disorder (deleted from the Chinese Classification of Mental Disorders in 2001) and has been decriminalized since the 1990s in Hong Kong, some helping professionals are still of the view that it is pathological (Kan et al., 2009; Kwok, Wu, & Shardlow, 2013; Kwok, 2021b). A study with over 400 medical students in 2009 found that the study informants had prejudiced feelings toward sexual

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Hong Kong  105 minorities (Kan et al., 2009). Hon et al. (2005) found that 25% of 780 medical students felt that LGBQ people need medical treatment as they have mental disorders (Hon et al., 2005). A quantitative study was conducted with over 400 social work trainees from publicly funded training institutes recognized by the social workers’ professional organization – the Hong Kong Social Workers Registration Board. Intolerance against LGBQ people was found in the study. One of the variables investigated, social work trainees’ religious beliefs, affected their attitudes toward LGBQ individuals. Those with religious beliefs were found to have a higher degree of negative attitudes toward LGBQ people than those without such beliefs (Kwok et al., 2013). In another study, it was found that in-service social workers’ competence to support their LGBQ service users was affected by their understanding, as well as other cultural forces in Hong Kong, such as the employing agency’s religious affiliation (Kwok, 2022). Furthermore, studies from local scholars found that the topics of nonheterosexuality and gender diversity are frequently omitted from sex education classes in schools. Some sexual minority or Tongzhi students have been pathologized by teachers as suffering from mental disorders (Kwok et al., 2012; Kwok, 2016). On February 19, 2013, a girl jumped to her death from a public housing unit because she had been the target of homophobic bullying at school. A motion that called for consultation to establish an ordinance to prevent sexual orientation discrimination was voted down by the Hong Kong Legislative Council. At present, the law to protect sexual and gender minorities from discrimination has still not been enacted (Equal Opportunities Commission, 2022). Transprejudice and Transgender Communities

A study of transprejudice, using the Minority Stress Model to examine the mental health of transgender adults, revealed that internalized phobia about their transgender identities was significantly related to their mental health (Ho, 2015). In a study examining the experiences of ninety transgender adults attending a gender clinic run by the Hong Kong Hospital Authority, 46% of the informants had been affected by mental health concerns, such as anxiety disorder and depression (Chan, 2013). Of over 800 Chinese informants from the general public surveyed about their attitudes toward transgender people, 35% regarded transgender women as “psychologically abnormal,” and 35% of them disapproved of legal recognition of transgender people, even after gender-affirmation surgery (Winter, Webster, & Cheung, 2008, p. 673). Years later, in another study, over 30% of 200 public informants considered it “very wrong” to want to alter one’s body or gender (Equal Opportunities Commission, 2016, p. 120). Nevertheless, the respondents to this study perceived that transgender people faced undue and great hardship in daily life. A transgender respondent pointed out that transgender people “could not survive if there was no legislation against discrimination of them” (Equal Opportunities Commission, 2016, p. 110). Transgender people suffer from a high unemployment rate and mental health risks (Transgender Resource Center Hong Kong, 2016). In accessing

106  Diana K. Kwok public facilities and school sectors, they are often not allowed to use gender pronouns and names according to their self-identified gender. They are forced to use washrooms, shelter services, or bathrooms inconsistent with their gender identity (Kwok, 2021a). Additionally, trans youth are banned from learning from trans-inclusive sexuality education information and are not allowed to use transition-related care services in the Hospital Authority’s Gender Identity Clinic. When seeking assistance, their self-defined gender identities are denied by those from whom they seek help, including social workers (Kwok, 2021a; Kwok & Kwok, 2022; Transgender Resource Center, 2016). Despite evidence of widespread discrimination toward sexual and gender-minority communities, in Hong Kong, transgender people are exposed to daily prejudices without any legal protection in the form of a gender recognition act or an antidiscrimination law (Barrow, 2020; Hong Kong Christian Institute, 2014; Kwok & Kwok, 2022). Local scholars, such as Barrow (2020), have commented that the legislation of such legal frameworks to enhance human rights has been “seized upon by counter-movements, including religious opposition and parental concern groups” (p. 138). School Life in Hong Kong: Various Issues There are many challenges faced by Hong Kong schools, especially in addressing issues related to diverse student needs, including students with mental health concerns (Yuen et al., 2020), those who have special educational needs (Szeto et al., 2020), and students coming from ethnic minority groups (Bhowmik, Kennedy, & Hue, 2018). Regarding mental health concerns, Yuen et al. (2020) quoted a few studies in Hong Kong to illustrate their concerns about students’ psychological well-being: nearly 50% of students in Hong Kong secondary schools showed signs of depressive symptoms, and 27% reported suicidal ideation (Abraham, 2017; Cheung, 2015, as cited in Yuen et al. (2020). For students with special educational needs, the HKSAR government has put much effort into providing school support through policies and practices of integrated education (Education Bureau, 2022). There is an antidiscrimination ordinance based on disability to protect students with disability from prejudiced practices in schools. Additionally, there has been an emergence of special education coordinator practices in public schools since 2015 to support students with learning disabilities and special educational needs (Szeto et al., 2020). For supporting students with mental health needs, the government also enhances school guidance and counseling services and a whole school approach through the implementation of “two school social workers for each school” policy (HKSAR Government, 2019) in all public-funded schools. Concerning ethnic minority students, they are facing prejudices and discrimination in many aspects of their school life, such as language learning, entrance admissions, assessment, and resource support in achieving multicultural education. The government enacted the Race Discrimination Ordinance in 2008. The law protects ethnic and racial minorities from discrimination against them

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Hong Kong  107 in Hong Kong schools (Equal Opportunities Commission, 2022). In regard to sexuality education, the priority in schools has often been low, as it is not an independent subject, nor a subject for examination. Due to social-cultural backgrounds, its implementation and contents have been obstructed by religious and cultural forces in Hong Kong, not to mention the development of a curriculum in sexual and gender diversity to address the needs of SOGI minority students (Kwok, 2020; Ng & Ma, 2006; Winter & King, 2010). School Life in Hong Kong: SOGI Minority Compared to Euro-American countries, where the earliest studies of SOGI minority youths’ school experiences were in the 1990s in the United States and peaked in the 2000s and 2010s, East Asian countries have published few studies about sexual- and gender-minority students in international journals (Sugiyama & Ofuji, 2006), and research on transgender students is particularly lacking (Kwok & Kwok, 2022). This is despite the fact that Lam et al. (2004, p. 490) surveyed over 2,000 school-age adolescents of whom 5% and 15% of males and females, respectively, reported having “gender dissatisfaction.” In another study, 20% of over 400 adolescents stated uncertainty about their sexual orientation, and around 4% expressed feelings toward same-sex peers (Wu, Leung, & Leung, 2008). The youth and school-age population, related to their expression of SOGI in schools, is a group needing support in Hong Kong. Sexual Orientation Identities and School Life

Chinese LGBQ and sexual minority youth were rarely visible in academic studies during the 1990s, partly 1) due to social stigma, and 2) because, even if they were visible, it was challenging to get research approval to interview informants without parental consent (youth under 18). The first online survey of school bullying experiences conducted by the Boys’ and Girls’ Clubs Association of Hong Kong (BGCAHK), with around 500 sexual minority youth, found that over 50% of these students had encountered discrimination at school. Sixty-one percent of the survey participants recalled incidents on sexual orientation bullying. These students were not supported by their teachers when facing homophobic harassment; in fact, there were some reports of teachers advising them to change their sexual orientations to conform to conventional sexuality. Twenty-five percent had heard discriminatory language from teachers (BGCAHK, 2009). The first journal article to be published in an international journal on Chinese sexual minority students’ school experiences, based on their narratives and perspectives, was found in 2012 (Kwok et al., 2012). The students in this study had navigated psychological (individual level) and cultural (institutional level) heterosexism. They were bullied psychologically, and marginally excluded from formal sex education curricula and school programs. Some of them had faced mental health difficulties, e.g., suffered from depression and substance abuse, with no support from educators, counselors, or

108  Diana K. Kwok social workers. Later research also demonstrated that not all educators, counselors, and social workers, despite having good intentions to support their sexual minority students, were well prepared with knowledge about sexual diversity (Kwok et al., 2013; Kwok, 2015; Kwok, 2016, 2017; Kwok, 2018; Kwok, 2019). It has been suggested that institutional-level sexual prejudice and heterosexism add to LGBQ students’ mental health difficulties and marginalized situations. Scholars from Hong Kong recommended that educators’ professional development, policy reform, and curriculum revision be carried out to promote a safe and inclusive school atmosphere for SOGI minority students (Kwok, 2016, 2017, 2019, 2020; Kwok & Kwok, 2022; Winter & King, 2010). Gender Identities and School Life

Transgender or trans youth groups in Hong Kong under the age of 18 face extra hardships beyond those of other sexual- and gender-minority groups, as they are not supported by the transition-related medical care provided by the Hospital Authority of Hong Kong, such as hormone treatment and gender-affirming surgery, and they also lack school and family support (as most of them have not come out to their schools and families). That leaves this subgroup of the transgender population particularly vulnerable to social and educational isolation, and mental health risks (Kwok, 2015; Kwok & Kwok, 2017; Kwok, 2021a; Kwok & Kwok, 2022). Trans youth, similar to LGBQ youth, are subjected to prejudice in the form of transphobic bullying and harassment. Individual-level harassment and discrimination include relational, physical, verbal, and online bullying. Institutionally, harassment and bullying are manifested through unsafe and conservative male/female gender-binary school rules, facilities, and curricula. For example, in a 2015 study (Kwok, 2015) with sexual and gender-minority students as major informants, transgender students shared that they were afraid to come out in schools, and even if they had come out accidentally or voluntarily, they were usually banned from using preferred gender pronouns and names, which do not conform to the school binary culture. When seeking assistance, their self-defined gender identity was denied by those from whom they sought help, including school social workers and physicians (Kwok, 2015). In Hong Kong, transgender equality has been debated heatedly since 2017, when the government released a consultation paper on the Gender Recognition Act. Prejudice toward this highly marginalized and invisible population persists, raising concerns about their mental health risks (Kwok & Kwok, 2022). Notably, the situation of sexual and gender-minority students is different from that of other groups, such as students with special educational needs, disability groups, and ethnic minority groups. Equal opportunities, legal frameworks, and inclusive policies are present, and educators can be offered in-service and pre-service education to challenge prejudices against these latter groups, but there are no such formal educational opportunities, legal frameworks, or school policies to support SOGI minority youth in schools. Nowadays, trans education has not been included in sexuality education in

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Hong Kong  109 Hong Kong, which is a part of the “moral and civic education” curriculum. Where there is education about gender issues, the definition of gender is based on the cisgender and heterosexist binary conception (Winter & King, 2010; Kwok, 2018; Kwok & Kwok, 2022). Practices in Hong Kong Schools SOGI minority students face challenges with being accepted in Chinese Hong Kong schools, with genderism and heterosexism against them not only prevailing but being manifested overtly in the education curriculum, counseling system, school rules, and teacher education/code of ethics (Kwok, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019; 2020; 2021a; Kwok & Kwok, 2017, 2018; Kwok & Kwok, 2022). Sexual and Transprejudice among Educators

Hong Kong was a British colony, and European missionaries established schools and social service agencies during the colonial years. Still today, many public-funded schools are Christian affiliated (Winter & King, 2010). Educators, school board members, administrators, and principals, especially those with religious backgrounds, have the power to decide school policies and counseling practices relating to sexual and gender diversity issues. For instance, parents and students have been introduced to organizations offering sexual orientation change programs based on religious and homophobic values (Hong Kong Christian Institute, 2014; Kwok, 2016, 2019). Principals and schoolteachers reveal their sexual prejudices at public events. For example, school principals and administrators explicitly protested the amendment of the law to protect gay and lesbian intimate partners in the Amended Domestic Violence Ordinance. During the same event, over 15,000 teachers from around 70 schools endorsed condemnation of establishing legal protection for gay and lesbian couples facing intimate partner violence. The argument was that the endorsement of gay and lesbian intimacy, i.e., to approve the amended ordinance, would pose a threat to Chinese family values (Kwok & Wu, 2015). In a study with currently employed teachers (Kwok, 2019), informants were asked to report their understanding of sexual and gender diversity concerns and their suggestions for professional training themes on sexual diversity. Informants indicated clearly that no teacher training or professional development workshops or programs about SOGI minority issues were provided by the Education Bureau formally, despite accessibility of themes connecting to other marginalized or minority students, e.g., racial and ethnic minorities, students with special needs or disabilities. As well, the teacher informants voiced their demand for support to speak to tensions with their cultural values, especially religious values. There are no ethical guidelines for educators to discuss homophobia or transphobia within the school system. This makes it more difficult for educators or helping professionals to work within schools with religious affiliations to support SOGI minority students (Kwok, 2019).

110  Diana K. Kwok Curriculum Omission

In Hong Kong, there are no stand-alone sexuality education classes or subjects. The topic of sexual and gender diversity has been categorized under “controversial” and “moral and civic” issues by the Hong Kong SAR Government Education Bureau. Topics like homophobia, transphobia, genderism, or heterosexism as issues for discussion cannot be seen (Hong Kong Education Department Curriculum Development Committee, 1986, 1997). Historically, the theme of “homosexuality” was placed in a group of topics named “controversial sex issues” in 1986, in the Sex Education Guidelines provided by the Curriculum Development Committee. In the same group, there were topics on “abortion,” “pornography,” and “prostitution.” They were portrayed as “problematic issues,” and there was no association of these issues with heterosexuality (Hong Kong Education Department Curriculum Development Committee, 1986, p. 84). It appeared to the students that sexuality is related to binary concepts only, with heterosexuality regarded as “normal sexuality” and nonheterosexuality as “problematic” and deviating from the “norm.” Transgender, gender identity, and other sexualities, such as bisexuality, were not mentioned. Ten years later, there was a revised guideline published by the Hong Kong Education Department Curriculum Development Committee (1997). This revised, and current sexuality education curriculum of 1997 uses the term “sexual orientation” as a replacement for “homosexuality” (Hong Kong Education Department Curriculum Development Committee, 1997). Concepts and terms relating to diverse sexual identities were included, such as bisexuality, homosexuality, and heterosexuality, yet the implementation of sexual and gender diversity topics is not a compulsory practice for all schools. Currently, the Education Bureau subsumes the “sex education” curriculum into the “moral and civic education curriculum.” For instance, themes on “sexual orientation” and “gender identities” are frequently excluded by teachers. Students and educators perceive that seminars or workshops linked to these topics may clash with schools’ founding rules, policies, and religious affiliations (Winter & King, 2010; Kwok, 2019; Kwok & Kwok, 2022). Connected to the previous discussion, Hong Kong studies have found that institutional-level exclusion exists, including misrepresentations in curricula and the nonexistence of sexuality education with SOGI minority themes, which are rights-based and developmentally relevant. Schools run by Christian churches implement abstinence-based and moral-based sexuality education curricula (Kwok, 2018; Kwok & Kwok, 2022). Some schools have sought to include developmentally relevant SOGI minority knowledge in general education or sexuality education curricula but have been challenged with strong opposition from parent organizations and religious groups (Kwok, 2016; Kwok, 2021). Exclusion of SOGI minority topics from school curricula also generates an unsafe and noninclusive educational environment for SOGI minority students. SOGI antidiscrimination or anti-bullying school policies have not been initiated officially by the Education Bureau. In some religious-affiliated schools,

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Hong Kong  111 where gay and lesbian topics are included in their teaching, educators’ focus is on traditional heterosexist constructions and support of abstinence-based education. Sometimes, educators even actively adopt a pathological view while teaching their students by describing gay and lesbian students as suffering from mental disorders and proposing reparative sexual orientation change therapy (Kwok et al., 2012; Kwok, 2016). Local community projects fill this educational gap by supporting sexual- and gender-minority students, with a human rights perspective, by providing SOGI minority education to parents, students, and educators (Kwok & Kwok, 2018). Community Project Fills the Educational Gap

Here is one example from Hong Kong of how a community youth development project has filled the educational gap. Initiated in 2007 by a nongovernmental organization (NGO) – the Boys’ and Girls’ Clubs Association (BGCA) of Hong Kong, a Tongzhi youth support project – Project Touch was established as the first youth social service in Hong Kong to assist LGBQ students/ youth and their families. Project Touch endeavors to put forward a discrimination-free space to care for LGBQ youth and families, as well as to promote Tongzhi human rights and value equality in Hong Kong. The services provided by the project include (1) support programs for Tongzhi students and youth, (2) support groups for parents and families of Tongzhi youth, (3) AIDS prevention and sexual health outreach programs, (4) professional development workshops for educators and helping professionals, such as school social workers, (5) educational workshops on sexual and gender diversity for high school students, and (6) research and public education on sexual and gender diversity (BGCAHK, n.d.; Kwok & Kwok, 2018). Project Touch provides support services for Tongzhi youth, such as a mentorship program, volunteer development groups, and mutual help/mutual support groups. They discussed topics relevant to the developmental needs of Tongzhi youth, such as “coming out,” “les in love,” “men in love,” and “transgender groups.” They have connections with school social work teams in Hong Kong and, whenever necessary, school social workers, educators, and other mental help professionals refer young people and family members in need of support. Additionally, a parent support group has been established to provide psychological support and education to family members and parents, to understand and accept their children with diverse sexuality and gender identities/ expressions. Regarding sexual health education, Project Touch provides online outreach services, HIV testing services, and peer counseling programs. The project’s social workers also render sexual and gender diversity education for high school and university students. As well, professional development workshops for educators and helping professionals are implemented in order to help them to acquire the appropriate knowledge, attitudes, and skills to work with SOGI minority students. Finally, Project Touch also makes use of social media to promote equality values and conducts online surveys on the situations of

112  Diana K. Kwok SOGI minority students. Project Touch has been recognized widely for its initiatives and contributions to the inclusion of SOGI minority youth. It has received awards, including the LGBQ Community Impact Award (Kwok & Kwok, 2018). Recommendations Enactment of Antidiscrimination Ordinance

There is no antidiscriminative legislation targeting homophobic and transphobic discrimination in Hong Kong. The existing codes of ethics for professional organizations do not spell out explicitly that transphobic prejudices and related stigmatized practices by educators, counselors, and mental health practitioners should be unacceptable. Without legal protection and explicit codes of ethics to prevent homophobic and transphobic prejudice in schools and other educational contexts, SOGI minority students continue to encounter barriers to receiving supportive mental health, learning, and social support. As SOGI minority students are greatly affected by their environments, support strategies at the institutional level, including through active involvement in advocacy work to build coalitions and promote systemic change (Chavez-Korell & Johnson, 2010; Goodrich & Luke, 2009; Gonzalez & McNulty, 2010; Kwok, 2017; Kwok & Kwok, 2017, Kwok, 2019) are recommended, such as advocacy for the enactment of the legal framework to prevent discrimination based on sexuality and gender. Anti-Harassment School Campaigns

SOGI minority students may encounter difficulties, barriers, or sexuality/gender-based harassment due to heterosexism and genderism at both individual and institutional levels. In regard to this, educators and school counselors not only focus on mental health but actively challenge sexual prejudice, transprejudice, heterosexism, and genderism by advocating for system change (Chavez-Korell & Johnson, 2010; Goodrich & Luke, 2009; Gonzalez & McNulty, 2010). Moreover, coping skills and strategies to confront SOGI-based bullying are recommended. They may be connected to affirmative and useful medical and social services (Chavez-Korell & Johnson, 2010; Lennon & Mistler, 2010). Anti-harassment campaigns based on genderism can be initiated by collaborating with NGOs or the Equal Opportunities Commission. Professional Training

It is suggested that sexual and gender diversity issues are included in professional development themes for educators, administrators, and student service counselors, with anti-prejudice and advocacy perspectives. Prior research findings have shown that teacher allies have significant roles to play in advocating prejudice-free space and equal opportunities for LGBT students (Harper &

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Hong Kong  113 Singh, 2014; Singh, Meng, & Hansen, 2013; Rostosky, Black, Riggle, & Rosenkrantz, 2015). In Hong Kong (Kwok, 2019), teacher allies proposed that in addition to educational content, dialogue with SOGI minority people and reaching out to their communities are essential strategies to enhance sexual and gender diversity competence for educators. Considering the content of sexual and gender diversity education, it is essential to “include up to date evidence on issues such as LGBQ identity development, minority stress, and human rights perspectives in the curriculum” (p. 356). Concerning strategies, “Intergroup contact can be added as a training strategy, through the inclusion of LGBQ panels” (p. 356). Additionally, educators can be trained in taking active steps to raise SOGI minority students’ awareness of the negative impact of sexual and transgender prejudices on their lives, and equip them with life skills they can use to mitigate heterosexism and genderism. They can refer students to appropriate SOGI minority service agencies to get useful resources (Kwok, 2018, 2019; 2020). Curriculum Review on Sexuality Education

Previous publications on SOGI minority students in Hong Kong have indicated that support from community mutual help groups plays a key role in filling the educational gaps for sexual and gender-minority students by providing developmentally relevant and rights-based sexuality education for them. While models of rights-based sexuality education efforts for all students, including SOGI minority students, exist in some European countries (Kwok & Kwok, 2022), students in Hong Kong themselves have expressed the perception that school-based SOGI-inclusive sexuality education currently does not exist in Hong Kong. Mainstream sexuality education only addresses issues from a cisgender heterosexual perspective and is strongly informed by moral or abstinence-based considerations linked to cultural and/or religious values in Hong Kong (Kwok 2018). It is recommended that the existing sexuality education curriculum be reviewed by the Education Bureau of Hong Kong. Regarding the content of SOGI-inclusive sexuality education, it is suggested that knowledge about sexual and gender identities of SOGI minority students be included when teaching about sexual development. Community cultural terms can be discussed as well. Similarly, gender and sexual orientation should be viewed as a spectrum, rather than as being binary. By doing this, the gender dichotomy created by heterosexism and genderism can be negated. Sexuality education on sexuality and gender issues should be included, as many sexualand gender-minority students can be confused and struggle with power dynamics with their sexual partners if they have different preferences from those framed within the heterosexist understanding of sex and gender. Thus, the comprehensive, but distinctive, concepts of sex, gender, and sexuality should be the foundations of sexuality education. At the same time, we observe that sex education programs currently maintain a heterosexual focus, with emphasis on reproduction, contraception, and even safe sex. Therefore, knowledge about

114  Diana K. Kwok love and intimacy should be included for nonheterosexual and noncisgender relationships, together with safe sex practice, in sex education programs. Conclusion Chinese SOGI minority students are navigating heterosexism, genderism, prejudice, and lack of legal protection, both generally in society and in their educational contexts. Without the existence of an antidiscrimination ordinance based on sexual orientation, SOGI minority students face a homophobic and transphobic educational environment without institutional support from equal opportunities school policies, and professional support from school teachers and counselors. This also reveals a compelling need for the HKSAR government and the Education Bureau to initiate institutional support for SOGI minority students facing sexual and transprejudice, and to enhance the existing curriculum and professional competence of educators. The present chapter contributes to sexual- and gender-minority studies in education in East Asian cities, particularly in the Hong Kong Chinese cultural context, by adding to the existing body of work on their educational experiences. The literature review and discussion in this chapter provide educators and school professionals with information about campus experiences based on heterosexism and genderism in the Hong Kong Chinese context. The chapter also speaks to the need to expand the existing sex education curriculum and to include discussion about ethical, training, and practice issues for professionals, in advocating a SOGIfriendly, safe, and discrimination-free environment in Hong Kong. References Barrow, A. (2020). Sexual orientation, gender identity, and equality in Hong Kong: Rights, resistance, and possibilities for reform. Asian Journal of Comparative Law, 15 (1), 126–155. https://doi.org/10.1017/asjcl.2020.2 Bhowmik, M. K., Kennedy, K. J., & Hue, M.-T. (2018). Education for all: But not Hong Kong’s ethnic minority students. Race Ethnicity and Education, 21(5), 661–679. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2017.1294573 Boys’ and Girls’ Club Association of Hong Kong (BGCAHK). (2009). Tongzhi students in schools (in Chinese). https://t1.daumcdn.net/cfile/tistory/2655E54E54EC8AC905? download校園報告.doc. Butler, A. H., Alpaslan, A. H., Strümpher, J., & Astbury, G. (2003). Gay and lesbian youth experiences of homophobia in South African secondary education. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Issues in Education, 1(2), 3–28. https://doi.org/10.1300/J367v01n02_02 Chan, C. C. (2013). Prevalence of psychiatric morbidity in Chinese subjects with gender identity disorder in Hong Kong (Unpublished thesis). Fellowship examination, Hong Kong College of Psychiatrists, Hong Kong S.A.R. Chavez-Korell, S., & Johnson, L. T. (2010). Informing counselor training and competent counseling services through transgender narratives and the transgender community. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 4(3), 202–213. https://doi.org/10.108 0/15538605.2010.524845

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Hong Kong  115 Crossing the Gender Boundaries – Hong Konger Law Siu Fung. (2019, February 21) BBC News- Chinese. https://www.bbc.com/zhongwen/trad/chinese-news-46450690 Education Bureau. (2022). Integrated Education and Special Education Information Online. https://sense.edb.gov.hk/en/index.html Equal Opportunities Commission. (2016). Study on legislation against on the grounds of sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status. http://www.legco.gov.hk/ yr15-16/english/panels/ca/papers/ca20160215-rpt201601-e.pdf Equal Opportunities Commission. (2022). Discrimination law review. https://www.eoc. org.hk/en/discrimination-laws/discrimination-law-review/discrimination-law-review Gonzalez, M., & McNulty, J. (2010). Achieving competency with transgender youth: School counselors as collaborative advocates. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 4(3), 176–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/15538605.2010.524841 Goodrich, K. M., & Luke, M. (2009). LGBTQ responsive school counseling. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 3(2), 113–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/15538600903005284 Hann, S. (2000). (Dis)claiming Asian-American masculinity. In P. Nardi (Ed.), Gay masculinities (pp. 206–223). SAGE Publications. Harper, A., & Singh, A. (2014). Supporting ally development with families of trans and gender nonconforming (TGNC) youth. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 8(4), 376–388. https://doi.org/10.1080/15538605.2014.960127 Herek, G. M. (2000). The psychology of sexual prejudice. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(1), 19–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00051 Herek, G. M. (2007). Confronting sexual stigma and prejudice: Theory and practice. Journal of Social Issues, 63(4), 905–925. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.15404560.2007.00544.x Hill, D. B., & Willoughby, B. L. B. (2005). The development and validation of the genderism and transphobia scale. Sex Roles, 53, 531–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11199-005-7140-x Ho, W. Y. (2015). Collective self-esteem and stress coping in Trans (Unpublished undergraduate thesis). City University of Hong Kong. Hon, K. E., Leung, T., Yau, A. P., Wu, S., Wan, M., & Chan, H. (2005). A survey of attitudes toward homosexuality in Hong Kong Chinese medical students. Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 17(4), 344–348. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328015tlm1704_6 Hong Kong Christian Institute. (2014). 同志及跨性別平權報告 [Tongzhi and transgender equality report]. https://issuu.com/makmingyee/docs. Hong Kong Education Department Curriculum Development Committee. (1986). Guidelines on sex education in secondary schools. Hong Kong Government Printer. Hong Kong Education Department Curriculum Development Committee. (1997). Guidelines on sex education in secondary schools. Hong Kong Government Printer. Hong Kong SAR Government. (2006). Survey on public attitudes towards homosexuals. https://www.legco.gov.hk/yr05-06/english/panels/ha/papers/ha0310cb2-publichomosexuals-e.pdf Hong Kong SAR Government. (2019). The 2019–2020 Budget. https://www.budget.gov. hk/2019/eng/budget44.html Hong Kong SAR Government. (2022). Hong Kong: The Facts. https://www.gov.hk/en/ about/abouthk/facts.htm Kahn, M., & Gorski, P. C. (2016). The gendered and heterosexist evolution of the teacher exemplar in the United States: Equity implications for LGBQ and gender nonconforming teachers. International Journal of Multicultural Education, 18(2), 15–38. https://doi.org/10.18251/ijme.v18i2.1123

116  Diana K. Kwok Kan, R. W. M., Au, K. P., Chan, W. K., Cheung, L. W. M., Lam, C. Y. Y., & Liu, H. H. W. (2009). Homophobia in medical students of the university of Hong Kong. Sex Education, 9(1), 65–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681810802639848 King, M. E., Winter, S., & Webster, B. (2009). Contact reduces transprejudice: A study on attitudes towards transgenderism and transgender civil rights in Hong Kong. International Journal of Sexual Health, 21(1), 17–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/1931761 0802434609 Kwok, D. K. (2015). A research report on gender and sexual-orientation harassment experiences of LGBTQ students in Hong Kong secondary schools. Hong Kong Institution of Education. https://www.eoc.org.hk/EOC/Upload/UserFiles/File/Funding%20 Programme/policy/1314/20150526/HKIEd%20press%20statement_E.pdf Kwok, D. K. (2016). School experience of Chinese sexual minority students in Hong Kong. Journal of LGBT Youth, 13(4), 378–396. https://doi.org/10.1080/1936165 3.2016.1202803 Kwok, D. K. (2017). Lesbian, gay and bisexual students facing school harassment – affirmative school counselling practice in Hong Kong. In M. T. Hue (Ed.), School counselling in a Chinese context: Supporting students in need in Hong Kong (pp. 120–136). Routledge. Kwok, D. K. (2018). Community support programme: Support for Chinese trans* students experiencing genderism. Sex Education, 18(4), 406–419. https://doi.org/10.108 0/14681811.2018.1428546 Kwok, D. K. (2019). Training educators to support sexual minority students: Views of Chinese teachers. Sex Education, 19(3), 346–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/1468181 1.2018.1530649 Kwok, D. K. (2021a). Genderism and trans students in Hong Kong higher education. In N. Harrison & G. Atherton (Eds.), Marginalised communities in higher education: Disadvantage, mobility and indigeneity (pp. 64–78). Routledge. Kwok, D. K. (2021b). Contesting sexual prejudice to support sexual minorities: Views of Chinese social workers. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18 (6), 3208. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18063208 Kwok, D. K. (2022). Sexuality and teacher education: LGBT students and teacher education. In M. A. Peters (Ed.), Encyclopedia of teacher education (pp. 1003–1008). Singapore: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-8679-5_200 Kwok, D. K., & Kim, K. (2022). Navigating transprejudice: Chinese transgender students’ experiences of sexuality education in Hong Kong. Sex Education, 22(5), 552– 566. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681811.2021.1969908 Kwok, D. K. & Kwok, K. (2017). Contesting gender binaries in school counselling: Supporting students encountering transgender harassment. In M. T. Hue (Ed.), School counselling in a Chinese context: Supporting students in need in Hong Kong (pp. 79–93). Routledge. Kwok, D. K., Winter, S., & Yuen, M. (2012). Heterosexism in school: The counselling experience of Chinese tongzhi students in Hong Kong. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 40(5), 561–575. https://doi.org/10.1080/03069885.2012.718735 Kwok, D. K., & Wu, J. (2015). Chinese attitudes towards sexual minorities in Hong Kong: Implications for mental health. International Review of Psychiatry, 27(5), 444–454. https://doi.org/10.3109/09540261.2015.1083950 Kwok, D. K., Wu, J., & Shardlow, S. M. (2013). Attitudes toward lesbians and gay men among Hong Kong Chinese social work students. Journal of Social Work Education, 49(2), 337–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2013.768493

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Hong Kong  117 Kwok, K. & Kwok, D. K. (2018). Community support services for LGBQ students in Mainland China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. In K. J. Kennedy & J. C. K. Lee (Eds.), Routledge handbook on schools and schooling in Asia (pp. 880–888). Routledge. Lam, T. H., Stewart, S. M., Leung, G. M., Lee, P. W. H., Wong, M. S., Ho, L. M. (2004). Depression symptoms among Hong Kong adolescents: Relation to atypical sexual feelings and behaviors, gender dissatisfaction, pubertal timing, and family and peer relationships. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 33(5), 487–496. https://doi.org/10.1023/ B:ASEB.0000037429.79394.c6 Lennon, E. & Mistler, B. J. (2010). Breaking the binary: Providing effective counseling to transgender students in college and university settings. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 4(3), 228–240. https://doi.org/10.1080/15538605.2010.524848 Ma, J. L. C. (1999). Social work practice with transsexuals in Hong Kong who apply for sex reassignment surgery. Social Work in Health Care, 29(2), 85–103. https://doi. org/10.1300/J010v29n02_05 Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129(5), 674–697. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674 Moleiro, C., & Pinto, N. (2015). Sexual orientation and gender identity: Review of concepts, controversies and their relation to psychopathology classification systems. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1511. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01511 Ng, M. L. & Ma, J. L. C. (2006). Sexuality in Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China. In B. Francoeur & R. J. Noonan (Eds.), The continuum complete international encyclopedia of sexuality. Continuum. https://doi. org/10.1093/acref/9780199754700.001.0001 Rostosky, S. S., Black, W. W., Riggle, E. D. B., & Rosenkrantz, D. (2015). Positive aspects of being a heterosexual ally to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 85(4), 331–338. https://doi.org/10.1037/ort0000056 Singh, A. A., Meng, S., & Hansen, A. (2013). “It’s already hard enough being a student”: Developing affirming college environments for trans youth. Journal of LGBT Youth, 10(3), 208–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/19361653.2013.800770 Snively, C. A., Kreuger, L., Stretch, J. J., Watt, J. W., & Chadha, J. (2004). Understanding homophobia: Preparing for practice realities in urban and rural settings. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 17(1), 59–81. https://doi.org/10.1300/J041v17n01_05 Sugiyama, T., & Ofuji, K. (2006). Gay and lesbian youth research: An East Asian perspective. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Issues in Education, 3(2–3), 119–120. https://doi. org/10.1300/J367v03n02_12 Szeto, E., Cheng, A. Y. N., & Sin, K. K. F. (2020). Still not inclusive? A critical analysis of changing the SENCO policy in a Chinese school community. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 24(8), 828–848. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2018.1492642 Testa, R. J., Habarth, J., Peta, J., Balsam, K., & Bockting, W. (2015). Development of the gender minority stress and resilience measure. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 2(1), 65–77. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000081 Testa, R. J., Michaels, M. S., Bliss, W., Rogers, M. L., Balsam, K. F., & Joiner, T. (2017). Suicidal ideation in transgender people: Gender minority stress and interpersonal theory factors. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 126(1), 125–136. https://doi. org/10.1037/abn0000234 Transgender Resource Center Hong Kong (2016). Mental health of transgender people in Hong Kong. Transgender Resource Center Hong Kong. https://www.tgr.org.hk/ attachments/article/18/mentalhealthpolicybrief.pdf

118  Diana K. Kwok Trans Boy and Trans Girl. (2021, June 16) Apple Daily. Retrieved from https://collection. news/appledaily/articles/4ARFZ4VYRZCP5OIX5DAB33GPYQ. United Nations Development Programme & United States Agency Institutional Development. (2014). Being LGBT in Asia: China country report. www.asia-pacific.undp. org/content/dam/rbap/docs/Research%20&%20Publications/hiv_aids/rbaphhd-2014-blia-china-country-report.pdf Wernick, L. J., Kulick, A., & Inglehart, M. H. (2014). Influences of peers, teachers, and climate on students' willingness to intervene when witnessing anti-transgender harassment. Journal of adolescence, 37(6), 927–935. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. adolescence.2014.06.008 Winter, S., & King, M. E. (2010). Hong Kong. In C. Stewart (Ed.), The Greenwood encyclopedia of LGBT issues worldwide (Vol. I, pp. 375–390). Greenwood Publishers. Winter, S., Webster, B., & Cheung, P. K. E. (2008). Measuring Hong Kong undergraduate students’ attitudes towards transpeople. Sex Roles, 59, 670–683. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11199-008-9462-y Wu, K. K., Leung, E. Y., & Leung, A. Y. (2008). A survey on same-sex attraction in secondary school adolescents: Prevalence and psychosocial factors. Hong Kong Journal of Psychiatry, 18(1), 15–22. Yuen, M., Chung, Y. B., Lee, Q. A. Y., Lau, P. S. Y., Chan, R. M. C., Gysbers, N. C., & Shea, P. M. K. (2020). Meaning in life and school guidance programs: Adolescents’ voices from Hong Kong. International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance, 20, 653–676. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10775-020-09423-6Yuen

7

SOGIE, Bullying, and Cyberbullying in Thai Schools Timo T. Ojanen and Ruthaychonnee Sittichai

Introduction In this chapter, we focus on the situation of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) students in Thai schools, or how issues of sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression (SOGIE) are dealt with. The acronym LGBT does not explicitly cover all gender and sexual minorities or intersex persons. Much that we report is also applicable to these additional groups, but the available research does not explicitly address them. We do not want to overclaim the generalizability of the existing research, so we chose to use the acronym LGBT in this chapter. Thailand has a reputation as an LGBT-friendly country. However, this reputation is partly unearned, and pointing out the limits of Thai society’s tolerance of gender and sexual diversity is a recurring theme in research on Thai LGBT groups (Ojanen et al., 2016; Shrestha et al., 2020; UNDP, 2019). We will first cover the broader landscape of minority groups and education in Thailand, and then examine the situation of LGBT groups in Thai society overall, and specifically in educational contexts. We close the chapter by discussing recent anti-bullying initiatives. Minorities in Thai Society According to Ethnologue, 72 languages are spoken in Thailand, and just around 20 million of Thailand’s 66 million inhabitants speak the official language, Central Thai, at home (Lewis et al., 2016). Yet, Central Thai is the sole language of instruction in the vast majority of Thai schools, owing to nationalistic policies of assimilating linguistic and ethnic minorities. Only about 50% of students in Thailand are taught in a language they speak at home (UNESCO Bangkok, 2017a). One consequence is severe academic underperformance among ethnic minority children who have to learn how to read in a language they are not fluent in. National security concerns have caused mother tongue– based education initiatives to proceed slowly, even though pilot projects have

DOI: 10.4324/9781003430414-7

120  Timo T. Ojanen and Ruthaychonnee Sittichai shown dramatic improvement in learning outcomes among ethnic minority children first taught in their own language, and even though Thailand has a national language policy that guarantees the right of ethnic minority children to have their mother tongue represented in their school curriculum (Premsrirat & Person, 2018). As regards religion, official statistics indicate 93.5% of the population are Buddhist, 5.4% are Muslims, and 1.1% practice Christianity or some other religion (National Statistical Office & Ministry of Digital Economy and Society, 2021). The religious practices of those classified as Buddhists are actually very complex, including animist elements and worship of Chinese and Hindu deities, with religious practices chosen on the basis of the situation, or kala-thesa (literally, “time and place”; Jackson, 2020). While over 80% of Thailand’s Muslims live outside Thailand’s Deep South, this Muslim-dominated and largely Malay-speaking region bordering Malaysia has suffered from unrest and the state’s violent responses to it, with hundreds of teachers killed in recent years (Premsrirat & Person, 2018). This situation may partly explain why dealing with ethnic minorities’ languages and cultures is a sensitive issue for Thai education authorities. In principle, recent Thai constitutions have guaranteed legal equality and nondiscrimination. Section 27 of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand (2017) states, Men and women shall enjoy equal rights. Unjust discrimination against a person on the grounds of differences in origin, race, language, gender, age, disability, physical, or health condition, personal status, economic, and social standing, religious belief, education, or political view which is not contrary to the provisions of the Constitution or on any other grounds, shall not be permitted. Children with disabilities are another example of minorities whose inclusion in mainstream education is in principle guaranteed by law but hindered in practice. The Education Provision for Persons with Disabilities Act, B. E. 2551 (2008) guarantees that persons with disabilities enjoy free education in the institution of their own choosing, free of charge, from birth to death, with appropriate support. Bualar (2016) noted that Thai governments have supported the education of persons with disabilities since 1939, and yet “out of 1.5 million reported people with disabilities, 22.4% never went to school and 57.6% dropped out at the primary level” (p. 159) with just 20% completing primary education. Bualar (2016) analyzed that this results from a lack of coherent policy implementation, appropriate training for teachers, and inaccessible physical environments in schools and in public transportation on the way to school. This situation of inclusion in principle and exclusion in practice is similar to that of SOGIE minority groups, which we examine next.

SOGIE, Bullying, and Cyberbullying in Thai Schools  121 SOGIE in Thai Society Historical Background

The emergence of Thai sexual and gender minority groups has depended on the same nation-building processes that shaped how religious, ethnic, and linguistic minorities are understood and treated in Thailand (Jackson, 2003, 2020). Jackson (2003) suggested that the first recognized gender minority (kathoei – a term that today refers to trans women, but was broader in the past) began to emerge as a separate identity group after the Thai state mandated strict rules in the 1940s for how men and women were to dress and behave, causing those who did not conform to stick out and be labeled as kathoeis. The emergence of new gender and sexuality groups (phet, literally meaning “sexes”) continued in the 1960s, with more masculine gay males gradually understood to constitute a group separate from feminine kathoeis (although some Thais are still confused about the difference). In the 1980s, toms (transmasculine females attracted to women) and dees (gender-normative women attracted to toms) began to be recognized (Jackson, 2003). In 2014, a survey for secondary students by Mahidol University et al. (2014) listed 13 gender/sexual identities as phet response options. Over the past decade, individuals identifying as transgender men (phu chai kham phet), nonbinary, and queer have become visible in Thailand (Ojanen, 2019, pp. 9–13), as have intersex and asexual/aromantic individuals. The emergence of new identities is likely to continue. These new identities have been understood as categorical identities rather than fluid combinations of positions on the dimensions of gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and so on. Thai people are overall more familiar with specific identity terms than with dimensional concepts of gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity, and none of these terms have a single, universally accepted Thai translation. In everyday life, the term phet may refer to these “alternate sexes,” but in Thai law and official documents, it refers only to men and women, defined by birth sex only (Ojanen, 2009). Legislation, Attitudes, and Discrimination

The modern Thai state has strictly enforced normative gender expression in formal contexts, but it has not policed private same-sex sexuality as much. Enacted under pressure from colonial powers, an anti-sodomy law was on the books until 1956 when it was removed as redundant – nobody had ever been tried guilty under it (Jackson, 2003). Thai medical and psychological researchers portrayed homosexuality as pathological until the late 1990s (Jackson, 1997), but attempts to change sexual orientation by medical or psychological means appear to have been uncommon: In Ojanen’s (2010) qualitative study featuring interviews with nine mental health practitioners, one older psychologist said he was doing it and claimed to be the only one doing it in Thailand. A 2002 letter from the Department of

122  Timo T. Ojanen and Ruthaychonnee Sittichai Mental Health has been widely misunderstood to constitute an act of Thailand officially depathologizing homosexuality. In fact, this had already happened when Thailand introduced its own version of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (11th ed; ICD-10) in the early 1990s, but there had been no publicity, so activists asked for an official letter they could communicate to the public (Ojanen et al., 2016). The Thai public and media have also confused the diagnostic status of homosexuality with that of transgenderism, which remained pathologized as “Transsexualism” in the ICD-10. In 2022, the ICD-11 (Department of Mental Health, 2019) replaced the ICD-10. It lists “Gender Incongruence” in place of “Transsexualism,” under “conditions related to sexual health” rather than “mental and behavioral disorders” in order to reduce stigma. Thailand has made no independent decisions on these matters; it has just followed the WHO. As of February 2023, same-sex marriage (or civil unions) was not legally recognized in Thai law, although parallel processes had been initiated to legalize civil unions and to make marriage law gender neutral. Transgender persons can access medical treatments to transition physically, but their cost is not covered by public health insurance, and they have no way of making this transition reflected in their legal identification documents, such as national ID cards or passports (Ojanen et al., 2016). The only current Thai law that refers to gender or sexual minorities is the Gender Equality Act (2015), which instituted a general ban on “unfair gender discrimination,” defined as “to perform or not to perform any act dividing, obstructing or limiting any direct or indirect privilege without fairness on the grounds that such person is male or female or expresses themselves differently from their inborn gender” (Section 3, italics added). As the perplexing wording suggests, the law offers protection in cases based on gender expression, but it is unclear if discrimination based on sexual orientation is covered, and Section 17 of the law also has vague exemptions based on religion and national security. In a Southeast Asian comparison of attitudes toward homosexuality using World Values Survey data, Thailand was among the more tolerant countries, but 40% of Thai respondents indicated not accepting homosexual neighbors, which was a higher rejection rate than in the Philippines, Singapore, or Vietnam (Manalastas et al., 2017). A more recent national survey by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP; 2019) indicated that 69% of nonLGBT Thais had generally positive attitudes toward LGBT people. Overall attitude measures miss one key aspect of nonacceptance in Thailand. Just as specific religious practices are preferred for specific occasions (Jackson, 2003, 2020), mainstream Thai norms also consider the visible presence of LGBT persons appropriate for some situations (e.g., entertainment shows or beauty parlors) and inappropriate for others. Hence, LGBT people experience more discrimination in formal settings where regimented expression of gender norms is expected as a matter of “appropriateness” (Jackson, 2003). In the World Bank’s (2018) survey of 2,303 LGBTI persons in Thailand, the

SOGIE, Bullying, and Cyberbullying in Thai Schools  123 top three employment contexts considered hard or impossible for openly LGBTI persons to have a job were police/law enforcement (51.6% of respondents), military (50.5%), and religious institutions (45.8%). In contrast, only 4.2% thought beauty and wellness jobs were inaccessible, 3.6% stated this about retail jobs, and 3.1% about agricultural jobs (16.2% thought so about primary/ secondary education jobs). This situational nonacceptance is also reflected in the specific findings of the UNDP (2019) survey: 63% of non-LGBT respondents stated they would feel uncomfortable if a family member fell in love with someone who was LGBT, just under a half supported legalizing same-sex marriage and adoption, and only 35% supported gender recognition laws. Of the LGBT respondents in the UNDP (2019) survey, 50% reported discrimination in their families, whereas 10% of all LGBT people and 32% of transgender people reported being discriminated against in their current or most recent job. In the World Bank’s (2018) survey, 60% of transgender participants, 30% of lesbian participants (including toms), and 20% of gay men reported employment discrimination. Transgender people face more discrimination because they often cannot hide their non-normative gender expression, whereas gay, lesbian, or bisexual people often do have this option (Ojanen, 2009). Various Issues in Thai Schools Increased Access but with Quality and Equity Problems

Thailand has been successful in expanding access to education. Section 54 of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand (2017) guarantees “quality education for twelve years from pre-school to the completion of compulsory education free of charge.” UNESCO’s 2017/8 Global Education Monitoring Report indicated that 99% of students in Thailand complete primary education, whereas lower secondary education is completed by 85% (UNESCO Bangkok, 2017a). However, the quality of education in Thailand is considered poor. Newspaper columns frequently discuss this. Wangkiat’s (2020) column “Education ‘Reform’ Is an Utter Failure” is a good example. It notes that in the 2018 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) rankings, Thailand was 68th in reading, 59th in mathematics, and 55th in science (out of 79 countries), and in Education First’s English Proficiency Index of 2020, Thailand’s ranking was 89th out of 100 countries. These quality problems largely depend on educational outcome disparities (e.g., between rural vs. urban, poor vs. rich, and male vs. female students). World Bank (2015, p. 1) noted that in the 2012 PISA assessment, one-third of Thai 15-year-olds who were still at school “knew the alphabet and could read, but they could not locate information or identify the main messages in a text,” that is, they were functionally illiterate. In village schools, the proportion of functionally illiterate 15-year-olds was 47%, whereas in large city schools, it

124  Timo T. Ojanen and Ruthaychonnee Sittichai was only 15.5%. Village schools have small class sizes and above-average, per-student subsidies, but they lack adequate teachers, materials, and physical infrastructure, mostly serving poor families. Outcome disparities also exist between socioeconomic groups. For example, 80% of the poorest versus 100% of the richest students complete secondary education (UNESCO Bangkok, 2017a). Furthermore, there is a significant gender gap – in 2016, 58% of school-leaving girls entered tertiary education (World Bank, 2021a), compared to just 41% of boys (World Bank, 2021b). Violence, Bullying, and Cyberbullying

Although specific research on school bullying and cyberbullying in Thailand has emerged over the past 15 years, youth violence in Thailand has been studied for longer (Sittichai et al., 2018). Prevalence estimates for school bullying victimization vary widely. A newspaper article titled “Bullying Rampant among Students in Thai Schools” (2020) reported, referring to an unnamed 15-school study, that 91.79% of 10- to 15-year-old Thai students have been bullied. However, Wachs et al. (2015) reported that just 15.4% of 700 Thai adolescents (age 11–18 years) were school bullying victims, while another 5.6% were simultaneously bullies and victims – these victimization rates were still much higher than those of German and Dutch adolescents surveyed in the same study (6%–7% of them were traditional bullying victims and 1.7% were both bullies and victims). These wide differences in bullying prevalence estimates result from different definitions and measurement strategies. For example, the Wachs et al. (2015) study gave participants the Olweus definition of bullying (if an imbalance of power, repetition of the acts, and intention to hurt were not present in an incident, it would not count as bullying) and then inquired about their experiences, using just one question for bullying victimization and another for perpetration in the past 12 months. Meanwhile, studies reporting higher bullying victimization rates generally rely on a more inclusive definition of bullying (often not shared with study participants), and measure it with multi-item behavioral checklists. Although studies in the latter group could be said to measure youth violence rather than bullying (Sittichai et al., 2018), in fact, most bullying measures used globally do not conform to the Olweus definition of bullying (Vivolo-Kantor et al., 2014). This means that when examining bullying studies from any country one needs to consider carefully what exactly a given study was measuring, and cross-country or longitudinal comparisons are only meaningful when bullying is defined and measured in the same way in both instances. Differences in terminology and their definition also confound students and teachers. A mixed-methods study featuring interviews and focus group discussions of secondary students and teachers (Mahidol University et al., 2014) noted that three key words tend to be used in Thai – yok lo, klaeng, and rangkae. Yok lo closely corresponds to “friendly teasing,” whereas rangkae is the academic term used for bullying, and klaeng is somewhere in between. In the

SOGIE, Bullying, and Cyberbullying in Thai Schools  125 interviews and focus groups, teachers and students rarely used the word rangkae, and many equated it with serious physical violence. Students interpreted incidents not only based on behavior but also perceived intent (friendly vs. hostile) and the relationship between those involved (friends vs. enemies). The participants of a qualitative study of 136 central Thai youth (aged 15–24 years) used these same criteria to decide what acts constitute cyberbullying (Samoh et al., 2019). Repetition was not considered a criterion of bullying by participants of either study. However, an act by one student might have been intended as friendly teasing but interpreted by the other student as bullying or friendly banter might evolve into a violent argument (Mahidol University et al., 2014). Overall, these different terms and different interpretations lead to misunderstanding and miscommunication. Cyberbullying seems to be as prevalent in Thailand as traditional bullying. In the Wachs et al. (2015) three-country study, 15.4% of Thai adolescents indicated being traditional bullying victims, and 15.1% stated they had been cyberbullied, whereas traditional bullying seemed twice as common as cyberbullying among German and Dutch adolescents (ca. 6%–7% traditional bullying victims and 3% cyberbullying victims). Twelve percent of Thai adolescents were victimized both online and offline, compared to just 1.6% of Dutch and 1.8% of German adolescents. This pattern of comparable levels of cyber and traditional bullying has also been seen in China and Singapore, and might result from these countries and Thailand having a collectivist, high power-distance culture (Sittichai et al., 2018). Several cyberbullying studies in Thailand have examined its causes. Tudkuea et al. (2019) focused on 660 secondary students (aged 13–18 years) from the Deep South. In their causal relationship model, “cyberbullying was most influenced by frustration followed by group violence, violent media, and authoritarian parenting” (p. 145). While frustration seemed to be the immediate cause, it was in turn influenced by group violence, violent media, and parental violence (Tudkuea et al., 2019). Saengcharoensap and Rujiprak (2021) surveyed 1,928 Thai university students and measured cyberbullying with a 12-behavior checklist. Of the students, 86.7% had engaged in at least one of these behaviors and were categorized as cyberbullies. This high prevalence rate probably reflects both the high prevalence rates seen in studies using behavioral checklists and the findings of Samoh et al. (2019), whose participants considered cyberbullying an ordinary matter. In Saengcharoensap and Rujiprak’s (2021) structural equation modeling, a desire for revenge, having friends who cyberbullied others, and power imbalance were independently associated with cyberbullying, whereas the role of anonymity and low empathy were mediated by self-esteem. Sittichai and Smith (2018) surveyed 1,049 students (aged 12–18 years) from the Deep South about their ideas on how to cope with traditional bullying and cyberbullying. Both traditional and cyber victimization (within the past two months) were measured with a single question. Using a similar measurement approach as Wachs et al. (2015), the prevalence rates of traditional and cyber

126  Timo T. Ojanen and Ruthaychonnee Sittichai victimization were also very similar: 15.9% and 15.1%, respectively. The top three recommended coping strategies for traditional bullying were telling a parent/teacher, avoiding the bullies, and asking them to stop. For cyberbullying, the top three recommended coping strategies among Sittichai and Smith’s (2018) participants were blocking messages or the perpetrator, changing one’s phone number or email address, and ignoring the perpetrator. SOGIE and School Life in Thailand Large-scale surveys of secondary students in Thailand have shown that over 10% have some type of LGBT identity. In the Mahidol University et al. (2014, p. 34) survey of 2,070 students, 11.4% chose one of the LGBT identities listed in the questionnaire, and 0.5% indicated “other” as their identity. A reanalysis of the same dataset indicated that an additional 11.7% of the students stated being attracted to persons with LGBT identities without themselves having an LGBT identity (Guadamuz et al., 2019). A larger survey of 8,873 secondary students (449 were vocational students, while 8,424 were general secondary students) found that 12.9% identified with the listed LGBT identities, and 1.1% indicated some “other” identity (Ministry of Education et al., 2016, p. 3). SOGIE-Based Bullying

Globally, students belonging to minority groups tend to experience more bullying victimization than other students. UNESCO (2017) has suggested that LGBT students globally face three to five times as much bullying as non-LGBT students. In Thailand, we are aware of two relatively large-scale studies on bullying targeting LGBT students (Mahidol University et al., 2014; Sopitarchasak et al., 2017). The Mahidol University et al. (2014) study surveyed 2,070 students and conducted additional interviews and focus groups with students and teachers in five regions of Thailand. The key survey finding was that overall, 55.7% of LGBT-identified students and 24.5% of non-LGBT students faced some kind of victimization in the past month that they thought was related to them being perceived to be LGBT. More specifically, 30.9% of LGBT students reported physical violence, 29.3% reported verbal abuse, 36.2% indicated social bullying (e.g., spreading rumors or exclusion from peer groups), and 24.4% reported various types of sexual victimization based on their perceived SOGIE. However, most teachers and school directors interviewed in the Mahidol University et al. (2014) study did not perceive SOGIE-based bullying in their schools. They usually only perceived the most visibly different students to be LGBT, so they thought their school had just a handful of LGBT students. Also, they equated bullying with physical fights, and they did not see those happening among the students they knew to be LGBT. While they reported many kinds of activities to build group cohesion and morality, neither bullying nor LGBT issues were typically addressed directly. Some attempts to

SOGIE, Bullying, and Cyberbullying in Thai Schools  127 involve LGBT students may have further stereotyped them (e.g., always inviting the feminine boys to participate in flower arrangement or cheerleading). One further reason for teachers’ perceptions is that students rarely reported incidents to teachers. Of all students victimized on the basis of their perceived SOGIE, only 36.2% did something in response – of these students, 63% fought back, 51% consulted a friend, 19% talked with family members, and just 8.2% told teachers. When asked why the remaining 63.8% did nothing, 52% stated they did not want to do anything, 23% thought nothing would happen as a result of telling someone, 19% stated that nobody would believe them, 16% said that they were embarrassed, and so on (Mahidol University et al., 2014). It is notable that while 58.7% of the students surveyed by Sittichai and Smith (2018) recommended telling teachers if one was being bullied, just 3% of the actually bullied students in the Mahidol University et al. (2014) study told a teacher. As for the consequences of SOGIE-based bullying, the Mahidol University et al. (2014) study found it was significantly associated with lower grades, skipping classes, drinking alcohol, being depressed, unprotected sex, and suicide attempts. The prevalence of depression and suicide attempts was also significantly higher among those bullied for their perceived SOGIE than among those bullied only for other reasons. In particular, the finding that 6.7% of those who experienced SOGIE-based bullying, compared with 3.6% of students bullied for other reasons, and 1.2% of nonbullied students had attempted suicide in the past year, is alarming. Sopitarchasak et al. (2017) surveyed 1,250 male students in Bangkok. Their survey asked students about their victimization experiences by other students, teachers, parents, and members of the public, as well as sexual coercion. Over half of both sexual-minority (12.5% of the sample) and nonminority students reported victimization by other students, teachers, parents, and members of the public in the past semester. However, sexual-minority students were significantly more likely to have been victimized by other students, teachers, and members of the public, or coerced to have sex. Altogether 19.9% of sexual-minority students reported coerced sex, 29.5% had a test score indicating depression, 23.2% reported suicidal thoughts, and 10.3% reported a suicide attempt in the past semester. The additional contribution of this study is that it demonstrates that sexual-minority students in Thailand also face victimization outside schools, which might explain why those who faced SOGIE-based victimization in the Mahidol University et al. (2014) study were more likely to be depressed or attempt suicide than those bullied for other reasons. Stigmatizing Sexuality Education

One reason for other students’ prejudice toward LGBT students has been stigmatizing sexuality education, especially in health and physical education, the main subject into which sexuality education has been integrated (Ministry of Education et al., 2016). Wongwareethip (2016) analyzed lower secondary

128  Timo T. Ojanen and Ruthaychonnee Sittichai (grade 7–9) health education textbooks and the state-issued core curriculum. She found that the core curriculum and textbooks based on it espoused a twosex model and stereotypical gender roles, and stigmatized anything at odds with them as types of “sexual deviation.” One piece of evidence of the unfortunate effect of such teaching is that among 1,088 LGBT students in the Ministry of Education et al. (2016) survey, 35% agreed with the statement “sexual relations with the same sex are wrong,” and LGBT students were more likely to agree with this statement if they had attended sexuality education classes on LGBT-related topics (Shrestha et al., 2020). The Ministry of Education et al. (2016) study was a review of Thai sexuality education practices and related attitudes and concluded that current sexuality education was too narrowly focused on preventing unwanted pregnancies, while topics related to gender, rights, and power were not being sufficiently taught. Equipped with the Wongwareethip (2016) review and direct experience, a secondary student and an activist initiated a complaint about these sexuality education contents using the Gender Equality Act of 2015, and in 2019, the committee adjudicating complaints of gender-based discrimination ruled that the textbook contents related to gender and LGBT issues had to be changed (Lekkla, 2021). Lekkla (2021) reviewed the health education textbooks of six publishers who had updated their textbooks following the ruling; she found that their contents were no longer stigmatizing, but the acceptance they expressed seemed superficial, and many relevant identities and problems were not covered. Lekkla (2021, p. 81) recommended, The content of the textbook[s] should therefore be improved to increase the body of knowledge and stimulate debates about human rights, patriarchy, binary concepts, and gender stereotypes to establish a better … understanding of the issue of injustice pressing on LGBTIQN+ people.

Gendered Uniform, Hairstyle, and Toilet Regulations

Another pain point for LGBT (and also many non-LGBT) students has long been Thai schools’ strict uniform and hairstyle regulations, usually based on birth sex only. The Mahidol University et al. (2014, p. 80) study analyzed the problem as follows: Strict adherence to student hairstyle and uniform regulations based on sex at birth also attaches abnormality to transgender students and makes them feel uncomfortable, because they feel they are being coerced to follow the norms of the opposite sex. These practices are also directly linked to bullying behaviours. For example, forcing kathoei students to wear cropped hair makes them seem ridiculous in the eyes of other students, who duly choose them as targets for some “teasing.”

SOGIE, Bullying, and Cyberbullying in Thai Schools  129 In addition, Mahidol University et al. (2014) observed that when lesbian, bisexual, or transgender students surreptitiously cut their hair shorter than the regulations permitted, they were seen as bad students who would always be blamed first. Conversely, wearing makeup or even color-tinted sunscreen caused feminine boys to be publicly humiliated by teachers. Because these gender-nonconforming students had to be constantly on the watch for being caught breaking the rules, they were reluctant to approach teachers to report incidents of bullying. As for sex-segregated toilets (assigned on the basis of birth sex), the study noted that they humiliated transgender students and in addition were hotspots for bullying, so some students avoided going to the toilet all day. Fed up with these regulations and with being stigmatized as bad students, in 2020, a group of secondary students ironically called themselves the Bad Student group and staged protests at secondary schools and at the Ministry of Education, including a mock funeral of the Minister of Education, and when the minister came to address the protesters, he was told to wait for his turn to speak. In December 2020, hundreds of students nationwide protested against uniform regulations by wearing their regular clothes to school. These protests happened amid broader anti-government protests in which secondary students were prominent (Lertchoosakul, 2021). The protests were so effective that in December 2020, the minister of education said the Ministry was drafting more relaxed rules for hairstyles and uniforms (“Why Year of the ‘Bad Student’ Could Be Tipping Point for Thai Education,” 2020). It remains to be seen how much these changes will be institutionalized in Thai schools. Anti-Bullying Initiatives Various pilot projects have been conducted over the past decade in Thailand to prevent bullying and to build respect among students and teachers for diverse SOGIE. International organizations have been prominent in this work. Next, we give a few examples, especially by UNESCO Bangkok and Plan International Thailand, both of which were co-sponsors and collaborators of the pioneering Mahidol University et al. (2014) study, and continued to work on follow-up initiatives after the study had indicated that SOGIE-based bullying was a serious problem in Thailand. UNESCO’s efforts in Thailand and the broader Southeast Asian region have included introducing new tools, arranging national and international consultations, and cosponsoring social media campaigns. Here, we focus on two tools. The Connect with Respect manual, while formally titled a classroom program for preventing gender-based violence in schools, contains many activities that are suitable for preventing SOGIE-based violence. This manual was translated into Thai, Burmese, and Vietnamese (UNESCO Bangkok, 2017b) and a teacher training workshop was conducted. Subsequently, an audit tool for assessing school climate and curriculum for their level of LGBTI inclusion was commissioned, translated to Thai (available from the first author of this chapter), and a workshop was arranged. While Thai education authorities

130  Timo T. Ojanen and Ruthaychonnee Sittichai participated in many of these initiatives, it seems these tools have not been mainstreamed into more widespread use. Plan International has worked with various partners to prevent both bullying and cyberbullying, with a particular focus on SOGIE-based bullying. Their project in the largely rural Northern Thai province of Phayao is the most comprehensive attempt we know of to build understanding and prevent SOGIEbased violence in Thai schools. The project included workshops with students, parents, and other stakeholders, and resulted in the establishment of the Phayao LGBTIQ Center. Local LGBT groups and education authorities were involved. While the project has ended, the local network partners continue the work to some extent. Reflections from a Plan International officer suggested that the project was relatively successful because it tapped into a network of partner organizations already collaborating on other projects in the area (Juntrasook et al., 2020, p. 83). Plan International has also partnered with state and private sector partners (such as the mobile network operator dtac) to conduct further research on cyberbullying with a focus on its SOGIE-based forms and arranged related online and offline training for teachers (“dtac and Plan International Thailand Empower Teachers to Stop Cyberbullying,” 2020). Online platforms to prevent cyberbullying have also been created. The second author of this chapter was involved in a study that designed a Cyberbullying Mobile Application (CBMA) to increase cyberbullying awareness among youth and tested its reception among 253 secondary and university students, who appreciated the application, and some of them said they would continue using it (Tinukool et al., 2018). These efforts are not the only relevant initiatives conducted in Thailand over the past decade; they are just some examples we are familiar with. A Thai-language research report (Juntrasook et al., 2020, p. 80–84) provides further profiles of organizations working to build an understanding of LGBT issues among young people. Conclusion Awareness, research, and advocacy on school-based bullying/cyberbullying and on LGBT issues have greatly increased in Thailand in the past ten years. The positive changes in Thai sexuality education content and the relaxation of hairstyle and uniform regulations would have seemed unbelievable just a few years ago. While there have been promising pilot projects to increase acceptance of LGBT groups and to prevent bullying, these efforts have not translated into nationwide, sustained measures that would guarantee the safety of LGBT students in all Thai schools. The example of relaxed uniform and hairstyle regulations, and the changes in sexuality education, suggest that a forceful show of demand from the public (possibly combined with legal complaints) may be crucial to trigger change, but large-scale and sustained change is only possible when the Thai education authorities embrace the change and institutionalize it through their regulations and organizational structures.

SOGIE, Bullying, and Cyberbullying in Thai Schools  131 References Bualar, T. (2016). What has gone wrong with inclusive education in Thailand? Journal of Public Affairs, 16(2), 156–161. https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.1563 Bullying rampant among students in Thai schools. (2020, January 9). The Nation. https://www.nationthailand.com/news/30380328 Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand (Official Translation). (2017). https://www. krisdika.go.th/documents/67673/181643/837163_0001.pdf Department of Mental Health. (2019). ICD-11 บัญชีจำ�แนกทางสถิติระหว่างประเทศของโรค และปัญหาสุขภาพที่เกี่ยวข้องฉบับที่ 11: โรคจิตเวช ความผิดปกติทางพฤติกรรม หรือความผิดปกติ พัฒนาการระบบประสาท และโรคในหมวดอื่นที่เกี่ยวข้อง – International Classification of Dis-

ease for Mortality and Morbidity Statistics: Mental, behavioural or neuro-development disorders and related codes. https://dmh-elibrary.org/items/show/178 DTAC and Plan International Thailand empower teachers to stop cyberbullying. (2020, October 4). Bangkok Post. https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/pr/1996251/ dtac-and-plan-international-thailand-empower-teachersto-stop-cyberbullying Education Provision for Persons with Disabilities Act, B.E. 2551 (2008). (2008). http:// web.krisdika.go.th/data/outsitedata/outsite21/file/Education_Provision_for_Per sons_with_Disabilities_Act_BE_2551_(2008).pdf Gender Equality Act, B.E. 2558. (2015). (2015). http://law.m-society.go.th/law2016/ uploads/lawfile/594cc091ca739.pdf Guadamuz, T. E., Cheung, D. H., Boonmongkon, P., Ojanen, T. T., Damri, T., Samoh, N., Cholratana, M., Ratchadapunnathikul, C., & Sass, J. (2019). Illicit drug use and social victimization among Thai sexual and gender minority adolescents. Substance Use & Misuse, 54(13), 2198–2206. https://doi.org/10.1080/10826084.2019.1638936 Jackson, P.A. (1997). Thai research on male homosexuality and transgenderism and the cultural limits of Foucaultian analysis. Journal of the History of Sexuality, 8(1), 52–85. Jackson, P.A. (2003, August). Performative genders, perverse desires: A bio-history of Thailand’s same-sex and transgender cultures. Intersections: Gender, History and Culture in the Asian Context, 9. http://intersections.anu.edu.au/issue9_contents.html Jackson, P. A. (2020). Beyond hybridity and syncretism: Kala-thesa contextual sensitivity and power in Thai religious and gender cultures. Journal of Anthropology, Sirindhorn Anthropology Centre, 3(1), 4–37. Juntrasook, A., Freeman, C., Ojanen, T. T., Supawantanakul, N., Samakkeekarom, R., Sopitarchasak, S., & Tokthong, S. (2020). รายงานการศึกษารูปแบบการสนับสนุน LGBTI+ และ 4P: โครงการพัฒนาข้อเสนอแนะต่อการพัฒนารูปแบบและระบบการสนับสนุนสมาชิกครอบครัว เพือ ่ น คู่ ชีวต ิ และผูใ้ ห้บริการสุขภาพเพือ ่ ส่งเสริมสุขภาวะของประชากรกลุม ่ ความหลากหลายทางเพศ [Research report on types of support for LGBTI+ and 4P: Project for developing recommendations for developing types and systems of support for family members, friends, life partners and health service providers to enhance the wellbeing of sexual/gender diverse populations]. Faculty of Learning Sciences & Education, Thammasat University. https://lsed.tu.ac.th/uploads/lsed/pdf/research/%20LGBT4P.pdf Lekkla, N. (2021). การเปลี่ยนแปลงวาทกรรมเกี่ยวกับความหลากหลายทางเพศในแบบเรียนเพศวิถี ศึกษาจากความผิดปกติสู่การยอมรับภายใต้พหุวัฒนธรรมที่เป็นเพียงวาทกรรม [Changes of discourse on gender and sexual diversity in sexuality education textbooks from perversion to acceptance under the concept of multiculturalism that is just a discourse]. Journal of Language and Culture, 40(2), 79–95. https://so03.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/ JLC/article/download/257573/171936

132  Timo T. Ojanen and Ruthaychonnee Sittichai Lertchoosakul, K. (2021). The white ribbon movement: High school students in the 2020 Thai youth protests. Critical Asian Studies, 53(2), 206–218. https://doi.org/10. 1080/14672715.2021.1883452 Lewis, M. P., Simons, G. F., & Fennig, C. D. (Eds.). (2016). Ethnologue: Languages of the world (9th ed.). SIL International. Mahidol University, Plan International, & UNESCO. (2014). Bullying targeting secondary school students who are or are perceived to be transgender or same-sex attracted: Types, prevalence, impact, motivation and preventive measures in 5 provinces of Thailand. UNESCO. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002275/227518e.pdf Manalastas, E. J., Ojanen, T. T., Torre, B. A., Ratanashevorn, R., Choong, B. C. H., Kumaresan, V., & Veeramuthu, V. (2017). Homonegativity in Southeast Asia: Attitudes toward lesbians and gay men in Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam. Asia-Pacific Social Science Review, 17(3), 25–33. http:// apssr.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/2manalastas-053017-1.pdf Ministry of Education, Thailand, UNICEF, Mahidol University, & Thammasat University. (2016). Review of comprehensive sexuality education in Thailand. UNICEF Thailand. https://www.unicef.org/thailand/media/1101/file/Review%20 of%20Comprehensive%20Sexuality%20Education%20in%20Thailand.pdf National Statistical Office & Ministry of Digital Economy and Society. (2021). Statistical yearbook Thailand 2021. http://service.nso.go.th/nso/nsopublish/pubs/e-book/ SYB-2021/index.html Ojanen, T. (2010). Mental health services and sexual/gender minority clients in Bangkok, Thailand: Views by service users and service providers. [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Assumption University. Ojanen, T. T. (2009). Sexual/gender minorities in Thailand: Identities, challenges, and voluntary-sector counseling. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 6(2): 4–34. https:// doi.org/10.1525/srsp.2009.6.2.4 Ojanen, T. T. (2019). Mental health practitioners’ LGBTIQ cultural competence in Thailand [Unpublished doctoral thesis]. Mahidol University. https://doi.org/10.13140/ RG.2.2.20894.25925 Ojanen, T. T., Ratanashevorn, R., & Boonkerd, S. (2016). Gaps in responses to LGBT issues in Thailand: Mental health research, services, and policies. Psychology of Sexualities Review, 7(1), 41–59. Premsrirat, S. & Person, K. R. (2018). Education in Thailand’s ethnic languages: Reflections of mother-tongue based multilingual education policy and practice. In G. W. Fry (Ed.), Education in Thailand (pp. 393–408). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-98 1-10-7857-6_15 Saengcharoensap, K., & Rujiprak, V. (2021). Cyberbullying among university students in Thailand. Thammasat Review, 24(2), 41–58. https://sc01.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/ tureview/article/download/239988/163714/824215 Samoh, N., Boonmongkon, P., Ojanen, T. T., Samakkeekarom R., Jonas, K. J., & Guadamuz, T. E. (2019). “It’s an ordinary matter”: Perceptions of cyberbullying in Thai youth culture. Journal of Youth Studies, 22(2), 240–255. https://doi.org/10.108 0/13676261.2018.1495835 Shrestha, M., Boonmongkon, P., Peerawaranun, P., Samoh, N., Kanchawee, K., & Guadamuz, T. E. (2020). Revisiting the ‘Thai gay paradise’: Negative attitudes toward same-sex relations despite sexuality education among Thai LGBT students. Global Public Health, 15(3), 414–423. https://doi.org/10.1080/17441692.2019.1684541

SOGIE, Bullying, and Cyberbullying in Thai Schools  133 Sittichai, R., Ojanen, T. T., & Burford, J. (2018). Tracing the connections between sustainable development, bullying, and cyberbullying: The case of Thailand. In S. Verma & A. Petersen (Eds.), Developmental science and sustainable development goals for children and youth (pp. 223–237). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96592-5_12 Sittichai, R. & Smith, P. K. (2018). Bullying and cyber-bullying in Thailand: Coping strategies and relation to age, gender, religion and victim status. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research, 7(1), 24–30. https://doi.org/10.7821/naer.2018.1.254 Sopitarchasak, S., Kihara, M., Soe, K. M., & Ono-Kihara, M. (2017). Disparities in mental well-being between non-minority and sexual minority male youth in Bangkok, Thailand: Quantitative findings from a mixed method study. Journal of Population and Social Studies, 25(2), 83–98. https://so03.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/jpss/ article/view/102396/79244 Tinukool, O., Koowutyaporn, P. & Sittichai, R. (2018). The use of cyberbullying mobile application to increase perceived knowledge of cyberbullying among adolescents. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management. 15(3), 1–19. https:// doi.org/10.1142/S0219877018500293 Tudkuea, T., Laeheem, K. & Sittichai, R. (2019). Development of a causal relationship model for cyberbullying behaviors among public secondary school students in the three southern border provinces of Thailand. Children and Youth Services Review, 102, 145–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.05.013 UNDP. (2019). Tolerance but not Inclusion: A national survey on experiences of discrimination and social attitudes towards LGBT people in Thailand. https://www.th.undp. org/content/dam/thailand/docs/UNDP-TH-2019-LGBT-Tolerance-but-notInclusion.pdf UNESCO. (2017). School violence and bullying: Global status report. https://unesdoc. unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000246970 UNESCO Bangkok. (2017a). 2017/2018 Global Education Monitoring Report: Thailand highlights.https://bangkok.unesco.org/content/20172018-global-education-monitoringreport-thailand-highlights UNESCO Bangkok. (2017b). Connect with respect: Preventing gender-based violence in schools: Classroom programme for students in early secondary school (age 11–14). https://bangkok.unesco.org/content/connect-respect-preventing-gender-basedviolence-schools-classroom-programme-students-early Vivolo-Kantor, A. M., Martell, B. N., Holland, K. M., & Westby, R. (2014). A systematic review and content analysis of bullying and cyber-bullying measurement strategies. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19, 423–434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. avb.2014.06.008 Wachs, S., Junger, M., & Sittichai, R. (2015). Traditional, cyber and combined bullying roles: Differences in risky online and offline activities. Societies, 5, 109–135. https:// doi.org/10.3390/soc5010109 Wangkiat, P. (2020, December 14). Education ‘reform’ is an utter failure. Bangkok Post. https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion/2034755/education-reform-isan-utter-failure Why year of the Bad Student could be tipping point for Thai education. (2020, December 25). Thai PBS World. www.thaipbsworld.com/why-year-of-the-bad-student-couldbe-tipping-point-for-thai-education/1/4 Wongwareethip, W. (2016). ความหลากหลายทางเพศในแบบเรียนไทย: บทวิเคราะห์แบบเรียนสุขศึกษา ระดับมัธยมศึกษาตอนต้น [Sexual/gender diversity in Thai textbooks: Analysis of lower secondary school health education textbooks.] Foundation for SOGI Rights and Justice.

134  Timo T. Ojanen and Ruthaychonnee Sittichai World Bank. (2015). Thailand WANTED: A quality education for all. https://documents1. worldbank.org/curated/en/941121468113685895/pdf/AUS13333-WP-3Jun2015P146230-TH-PUBLIC.pdf World Bank. (2018). Economic inclusion of LGBTI groups in Thailand. https:// openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/29632/124554-WP-PUB LIC-LGBTI-Report2018-full-report-English-23March.pdf World Bank. (2021a). School enrollment, tertiary, female (% gross) – Thailand. https:// data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.TER.ENRR.FE?locations=TH World Bank. (2021b). School enrollment, tertiary, male (% gross) – Thailand. https:// data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.TER.ENRR.MA?locations=TH

8

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and School Life in Malaysia Chiaothong Yong

Introduction Malaysia is a culturally diverse country that is well-known for its embracement of different races, ethnicities, and religions. In the meantime, the acceptance of sexual and gender minorities is still at a very primitive stage. Sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) minorities in Malaysia are discriminated against by the country’s federal law and state Syariah laws that punish same-sex relations and gender nonconformity. The term lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, questioning, queer, and so on (LGBT+), which is largely seen as a Westernized ideology, is typically either glossed over or demonized. Consequently, SOGI topics are considered taboos that ought to be avoided not only in the education system but also in mainstream society. This chapter aims to provide a historical and cultural context to understand the unique challenges faced by the SOGI minorities in Malaysia. In addition, this chapter discusses the legal and societal struggles experienced by students of SOGI minorities in the Malaysian education system. This chapter concludes with interventions from the government and state-level agencies and from pro-SOGI allies and nongovernmental organizations. Malaysia as a Multicultural Society First and foremost, it is important to understand the cultural composition in Malaysia before we begin to discuss SOGI in Malaysian society. Before it gained its independence in 1957, peninsular Malaysia was called Tanah Melayu (the Malay Land). Between 1511 and prior to World War II, the land went through periods of colonization by the Western powers that included the Portuguese, Dutch, and British (Andaya & Andaya, 2016). The land was under Japanese occupation during World War II, and it was returned to the hands of the British shortly after the end of the war. There was an influx of immigrants from India and China between the 18th and 20th centuries to the land in meeting the labor demand work as traders, laborers, and miners during that period (Gopal & Karupiah, 2013; Ma, 2003). After gaining independence from the British in 1957, Malaysia as a country continues to flourish in its cultural and linguistic diversity. DOI: 10.4324/9781003430414-8

136  Chiaothong Yong Based on the census published by the Department of Statistics Malaysia as of January 2022 (Department of Statistics Malaysia Official Website, 2022a), there were an estimated 32.7 million people living in Malaysia, with about 92% (30 million) of the total population being Malaysian citizens. Bumiputera, which refers to people of Malay race or native races, compose the largest percentage of the Malaysian citizen population. In the year 2021, it was estimated that 69.8% of the Malaysians were Bumiputera. While this can be confusing to those who are not familiar with Malaysian history, the term Chinese or Indian is most commonly associated with the Malaysian racial groups of Chinese or Indian. Chinese, the second-largest racial group in Malaysia, made up an estimated 22.4% of Malaysians in the year 2021. The third-largest racial group, Indians, were estimated to make up 6.8% of the Malaysians in the same year. The remaining 1% of the Malaysian population consists of citizens who identify with neither of the three aforementioned racial groups or who identify with being bi- or multiracial. Owing to the racially diverse Malaysians who preserve and celebrate their cultures and religions vigorously, Malaysia is also a religiously diverse country. In the year 2010, 61.3% of the Malaysian population identified as Muslims, 19.8% were Buddhists, 9.2% were Christians, 6.3% were Hindus, 2.7% were Others, and 0.7 were agnostics (Department of Statistics Malaysia Official Website, 2022b). While Malaysia enjoys its fame for being a culturally diverse country, its society generally holds a rather conservative stance when it comes to SOGI issues. Due to the criminalization of SOGI minorities in its dual justice system, SOGI minorities are generally prejudiced and discriminated against in society. SOGI in Malaysian Society Historical Background

The Malaysian Constitution defines Malaysia as a secular state and declares Islam as the religion of the Federation (Federal Constitution, 2010). As such, Malaysia practices both secular and Syariah laws. While secular law is applied to all, Syariah law is only applied to Muslims. SOGI minorities can be deemed as criminals by both secular (Penal Code Section 377) and Syariah laws in Malaysia. According to the Asia Pacific Transgender Network (2017), the wider communities in parts of Malaysia were still considerably tolerant and respective of the transgender community between the 1970s and 1980s. It appears that the acceptance of the transgender community has decreased over time, with the increased use of religion (Islam) as the basis for public policymaking. Legal Background

As described by Lee (2012), the SOGI minority community is ironically criminalized by secular law under the legacy of British colonial rule, rather than as a result of local imperatives. The Malaysia Penal Code, Section 377A states, “Any person who has sexual connection with another person by the

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Malaysia  137 introduction of the penis into the anus or mouth of the other person is said to commit carnal intercourse against the order of nature.” Section 377B states that such an act “shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to twenty years, and shall also be liable to whipping.” Despite being rarely enforced (France-Presse, 2021), Section 377 made headline news in 1998 when it was used to prosecute the then-deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim, the highest-ranking governmental officer in Malaysia who was ever charged under the Penal Code for alleged sodomy (The Straits Times, 2014). He was found guilty and was sentenced to six years in prison under Section 377B and 377C (Lee, 2012; The Straits Times, 2014). Religious Background

Islam, being the state religion in Malaysia, has an enormous influence on the making of policies, laws, and regulations in the country. The state Syariah law in Malaysia has a clear definition of the criminalization and punishment of SOGI minorities, such as natal male acting like a female, natal female acting like a male, and same-sex sexual relationships. The Department of Islamic Development Malaysia, known as JAKIM (Jabatan Kemajuan Islam Malaysia), is a federal government agency that administers and oversees Islamic affairs in Malaysia. Quoting phrases from the al-Quran (central religious texts of Islam) and Hadith (the collected traditions of the Prophet Muhammad, an article published by the Department asserts SOGI minorities are morally wrong in Islam based on the clear writings in scriptures that prohibit same-sex relationships and transgenderism (Jabatan Kemajuan Islam Malaysia, 2015). The Department believes that the recognition of SOGI minorities and samesex marriage would cause huge confusion in the social life of a Muslim. For example, many of the Islamic regulations such as the definition of intimate parts, wedding rituals, family lineage, funeral rituals, and inheritance are gender-based. Hence, nonconformity to heterosexuality and gender norms is seen as a threat to the religious and social life of a Muslim. In addition, it is believed that SOGI minorities are either (1) merely satisfying their lustful desires, (2) being deceived by the devil’s temptation, (3) being ungrateful of the creation of themselves, and/or (4) attempting to change God’s creation. Therefore, JAKIM is adamantly opposed to the pro-SOGI social activists’ emphasis on personal human rights over religious morality. The Department asserts that the government has the responsibility to execute the “amar makruf, nahi mungkar” (doing things that God commanded and forbidding people from doing things that are prohibited by God) because they believe that the destruction of morality would lead to the destruction of a country. Sexual Orientation: Current Social Situation

Consistent with the legal and religious condemnation of SOGI minorities, Malaysian society generally holds a negative attitude toward SOGI minorities.

138  Chiaothong Yong Despite local pro-SOGI nongovernmental organizations’ yearslong efforts in pushing for the recognition of SOGI human rights, such a movement has gained little momentum at political and societal levels. The discrimination and oppression of SOGI minorities can be seen at both political and societal levels. At a political level, the treatment received by the SOGI minorities could range from being ignored to being openly called for persecution. For example, in 2019, the Malaysian Tourism Minister stated that he was unaware of any gay people in Malaysia (McKirdy, 2019). On the other end of the continuum, the persecution of SOGI minorities is not an uncommon practice. In 2018, after the police and government officials raided a nightclub that was popular among SOGI minorities for the first time in years, a minister at the time described the raid as an initiative to hopefully mitigate the normalization of SOGI minorities in the Western world from spreading into Malaysian society (Ellis-Petersen, 2018). At least two Malaysian prime ministers (e.g., Prime Minister Najib Razak in 2015 and Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad in 2018) made public denouncements of SOGI rights in Malaysia (Lavers, 2015; Azmi, 2018). Their arguments were made on the basis that such human rights do not align with human rights as defined in an Islamic context and in the Syariah law in the country. Compared to their non-Muslim counterparts, Muslim SOGI minorities in Malaysia are subject to stricter scrutiny under the Syariah law. In August 2018, the Syariah High Court of Terengganu (one of the states in eastern peninsular Malaysia that are governed by a conservative Islamic political party) found two women who allegedly engaged in a sexual relationship in a car at the time of arrest guilty under the state’s Syariah law (AFP, 2018). Each of these two women was sentenced to a fine of RM3,000 and six strokes of the cane. With the rise of exposure to SOGI topics on social media, SOGI minorities are viewed as an increasing threat to the stabilization and harmony of Malaysian society. For example, in response to social media postings that celebrate Pride Month in June 2021, a Malaysian government task force made a proposed amendment to Syariah law that would allow actions to be taken against social media users for “insulting Islam and promoting the LGBT lifestyle” (Latiff, 2021). Such a proposal has not been approved to date. At a societal level, “LGBT+” is eschewed by many as a Westernized ideology that directly clashes with Malaysia’s religious beliefs and cultural values. This is because the SOGI minorities community is deemed incompatible with the traditional cultural beliefs and values around marriage, parenting, family life, and having a son to carry on the family name (e.g., Amin, 2019; Hesamuddin, Harris, Danial, Mohammad Din, & Mohd Nor, 2019). A study that investigated attitudes toward lesbians and gay men in a number of Southeast Asian countries found that 58.7% of Malaysians did not want lesbian and gay neighbors (Manalastas, Ojanen, Torre, Ratanashevorn, Hong, Kumaresan, & Veeramuthu, 2017). Of Malaysians in the same study, 60.5% thought being gay or lesbian was never morally justifiable.

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Malaysia  139 Gender Identity: Current Social Situation

The transgender community in Malaysia experiences systemic and widespread stigma, discrimination, oppression, and human rights violations (e.g., Asia Pacific Transgender Network, 2017; Wei, Baharuddin, Abdullah, Abdullah, & Ern, 2012). Based on the Syariah law in Malaysia, any behaviors that deviate from gender norms, including cross-dressing and gender-affirming treatments, are subject to persecution. Individuals in the Malay-speaking transgender community identify more closely with the terms Mak Nyah and Pak Nyah in describing their gender identities. Mak Nyah is a Malay term for a natal male who identifies as female. Pak Nyah is a Malay term for a natal female who identifies as male. A number of qualitative studies (e.g., Sa’dan, Awang, & Rahman, 2018; Wei et al., 2012; Teh, 1998) consistently documented the narratives of the discrimination and abuse (in the form of verbal, physical, emotional, and/or sexual) from the law enforcement among Mak Nyahs. While non-Muslim transgenders are not subject to the Syariah law, they could potentially be subjected to a fine between RM25 to RM50 under Section 21 of the Minor Offences Act 1955 for indecent behavior, which could be loosely used to include cross-dressing (Commonwealth Legal Information Institute, n.d.; Aziz, Ismail, Awang, Rahman & Yusof, 2021). Compared to their Muslim counterparts, non-Muslim transgenders are far less likely to be charged or convicted. According to the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder (fifth edition; DSM-5), gender dysphoria is deemed as “psychological distress that results from an incongruence between one’s sex assigned at birth and one’s gender identity” (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Per the treatment recommendations made by the American Psychiatric Association, support for individuals with gender dysphoria could include social, legal, medical, and surgical affirmations (American Psychiatric Association, 2020). However, such affirmations are in direct conflict with Malaysian law and cultural practice. In the 1980s, the National Fatwa Council declared gender-affirming surgery as haram (forbidden) among Muslims (Asia Pacific Transgender Network, 2017; Wei et al., 2012). Any fatwa issued by State Gazette subsequently cause a law effect on the Muslim community (Nasohah, 2005). Today, those who underwent such surgery can face charges in the Syariah court, resulting in imprisonment and/or fine (Shogo, 2017). Despite this declaration being only applicable to the Muslim community, hospitals have since stopped providing gender-affirming surgery to anyone (Asia Pacific Transgender Network, 2017). Individuals who resorted to seeking gender-affirming surgery abroad face immense challenges in the process of changing their legal name and gender marker (Asia Pacific Transgender Network, 2017; Justice for Sisters, 2017). In addition to the surgical transitioning, the National Fatwa Committee also addressed social transitioning. The National Fatwa Committee specifically issued a prohibition in 2008 on peng kids, a local name for natal female dressing or expressing as male (Asia Pacific Transgender Network, 2017).

140  Chiaothong Yong The advocacy for the basic human rights of trans-identified individuals has been challenging in Malaysia. In January 2017, Malaysia’s Court of Appeal ruled against a previous High Court’s order to the National Registration Department to change the name, gender marker, and the last digit of the identification card number in a trans-identified man’s National Registration Identity Card (Justice for Sisters, 2017). Despite the ongoing struggles and challenges, there have been a number of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that have been actively advocating for SOGI rights in Malaysia. SOGI Human Rights Advocacy

The pro-SOGI allies and NGOs in Malaysia have come together many times in pushing for the removal of Penal Code Section 377, on the basis of the acknowledgment and support of SOGI rights. Such efforts many times inevitably face challenges from the authorities or local agencies as a result of a direct clash with the country’s religious and cultural values. For example, since 2008, a coalition of Malaysian NGOs and allies had organized an annual sexuality rights festival, Seksualiti Merdeka (Independence of Sexuality), in the capital city of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, on Independence Day (Outright Action International, 2012). This annual event, which was scheduled to be held in November 2011, was canceled due to a police ban on the basis of the protection of public security or peace. The deputy inspector-general of police’s response to the event ban was, “Let us not look into the interest of minority groups and end up infuriating the majority” (Jo-Ann, 2012). The ban of the Seksualiti Merdeka event is one of the numerous setbacks pro-SOGI NGOs have experienced over the years. In addition to the cancellation of SOGI minorities events, efforts to curb SOGI minorities also include the removal of information that is deemed inappropriate. The pictures of two pro-SOGI activists posing with the Malaysian flag were instructed to be removed from a photography exhibition at an annual cultural festival held in George Town, Penang (Su-Lyn, 2018). Such bans and censorship have always been a move very welcomed by the conservative and religious groups in Malaysia, who strongly believe that SOGI minorities are wrong and sinful in the face of religion. In contrast to the pro-SOGI human rights belief held by the NGOs, local religious groups strongly assert that human rights should be interpreted within the context of Islamic teachings and law. Any actions that lead to nonheterosexual relationships and/or to the change of one’s assigned gender at birth are an attempt to change God’s creation. In addition, it is argued that SOGI minorities are not entitled to the use of basic human rights as an argument in their advocacy (Muhammed & Amuda, 2018). This is because the advocacy for basic human rights should not be used as a tool to seek justification for haram (prohibited), immoral, irrational, and unnatural human behaviors, such as same-sex relationships or being transgender. Despite the ongoing disagreement between these two opposing camps on SOGI issues, both seem to mutually

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Malaysia  141 agree on the adversities experienced by the SOGI minorities. After meeting with pro-transgender rights activists in August 2018, the then-director of JAKIM stated that efforts should be prioritized on the eradication of hatred and discrimination toward the transgender community, especially in the workplace and public places (Bernama, 2018). Various Issues in Malaysian Schools The Malaysian education system includes primary, secondary, and post-secondary/pre-university education. The country’s cultural and linguistic diversity is reflected in its education system, which offers options for vernacular schools. Due to the unique diversity in the Malaysian public education system, the levels of tolerance for students of SOGI minorities in schools vary based on the type of school one attends. There are two options for public primary school education: (1) Malaymedium national schools (Sekolah Rendah Kebangsaan) and (2) non-Malaymedium national-type schools, also commonly known as vernacular schools (Sekolah Rendah Jenis Kebangsaan). Malay is used as the teaching medium at Malay-medium national schools. Chinese or Tamil is used as the teaching medium in vernacular schools – namely, Chinese vernacular schools (Sekolah Rendah Jenis Kebangsaan (Cina)) and Tamil vernacular schools (Sekolah Rendah Jenis Kebangsaan (Tamil)). Malay and English are compulsory subjects in all public schools, regardless of the teaching medium. In terms of public secondary school education, while there is an option to attend Chinese vernacular schools (Sekolah Menengah Jenis Kebangsaan (Cina)), a majority of the public secondary schools are Malay-medium national secondary schools (Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan). There are also other types of government or government-aided secondary schools, such as religious secondary schools (Sekolah Menengah Agama), technical schools (Sekolah Menengah Teknik), and fully residential schools. Outside of the public school system, private school options include international schools and Chinese vernacular private schools. School bullying is viewed by Malaysia’s Institute for Public Health as one of the most prevalent issues in the Malaysian school system (Institute for Public Health, 2018). According to a National Health and Morbidity Survey that was conducted in 2017, one in six adolescents was a recent victim of bullying (Institute for Public Health, 2018). In the survey report, bullying was defined as “being on the receiving end of ‘bad and unpleasant’” actions, such as “teasing a lot in an unpleasant way,” or being “left out of things on purpose” (Institute for Public Health, 2018, p. 9). Among the bullying incidents, students were most commonly bullied because of their physical appearance (16%). The same survey also found that 25.3% of the students have been involved in physical attacks or fights. Reasons for the physical attacks and fights, however, were not indicated in the report. In another study conducted by Sabramani et al. (2021), the researchers found that 79.1% of the 4,469 students sampled across the

142  Chiaothong Yong national schools in Malaysia reported being either involved in bullying, being a bully (14.4%), being a victim of bullying (16.3%), or being both a bully and a victim (48.4%). Furthermore, the study found that respondents who identified as bullies reported they were involved in verbal bullying (55.6%), followed by physical bullying (36.7%), relational bullying (11.6%), and cyberbullying (5.3%). A similar pattern was reported by respondents who identified as victims. Half of them had experienced verbal bullying (51.2%), followed by relational bullying (40.4%), physical bullying (27.3%), and cyberbullying (13.1%). There is no published study to date that examines the prevalence of bullies among SOGI minorities in the Malaysian school system. Overall, private schools generally take on a more lenient approach toward SOGI minority students when compared to national schools, though they mostly do not offer explicit guidelines in supporting SOGI minorities. Within the national school ecosystem, religious schools and Malay-medium schools tend to have much stricter, and systemic guidelines when dealing with students’ sexual orientation or gender identities (Sa’dan et al., 2018). Hence, SOGI minorities are generally more likely to experience bullying in religious schools and Malay-medium schools. Given the diversity and complexity of the Malaysian education system, it is not surprising to notice the daunting task of conducting any nationwide research on the Malaysian school system. In addition to factors such as geographical location, urbanization, socioeconomic status, and race, other factors such as the type of school and the teaching medium are also to be considered in the intersectionality of identities on the well-being of a student who identifies as a SOGI minority. SOGI and School Life in Malaysia There is no published research data on the demography and prevalence of the SOGI minority population. Due to the sensitive nature of this topic, it is even harder to conceive the idea of conducting research on minors who identify as SOGI minorities in the diverse Malaysian school system. Historical Background on School Settings

Due to the criminalization of SOGI minorities in the country, SOGI minorities are also condemned in the Malaysian education system. Efforts have been invested in steering students away from expressing SOGI that are not accepted by the mainstream. Instead of treating SOGI as a taboo that no one should talk about, the Education Ministry has introduced and taken on the approach of tackling SOGI issues in schools head-on through awareness campaigns and seminars. For example, the seminars organized by the National Union of the Teaching Profession Malaysia (Yayasan Guru Malaysia Berhad, YGMB) have the intention of helping parents and teachers “recognize symptoms of LGBT.” In a September

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Malaysia  143 2012 interview after opening a YGMB-organized parenting seminar on “curbing LGBT issues,” the deputy minister of the Education Ministry at that time strongly encouraged a more open discussion on SOGI: The time has come for the LGBT issue to be discussed openly and not treat it as a taboo subject, just like when we introduced sex education in schools where we undertook various measures including naming the subject health and reproductive education. (The Star, 2012) The Education Ministry believed that parents and teachers should be educated about “LGBT symptoms,” preventive measures, and the dangers posed by the “LGBT phenomenon.” In the meantime, the deputy minister emphasized that such education seminars are not intended to encourage the public to chase away SOGI minorities, to use violence against them, or arrest SOGI minorities. Studies conducted between 2002 and 2014 found homophobic and transphobic violence in educational settings (UNESCO, 2016). Violence against SOGI minority students includes humiliation, sexual violence, and expulsion from school. Aligned with the country’s anti-SOGI minorities law and traditional values, schools in Malaysia generally take on a stance against the SOGI minority community. With the goal of preventing and minimizing students’ deviation from the societal norm on gender identity and sexual orientation, the level of emotional support students receive during the intervention process could range from positive to hostile. SOGI: Current School Settings

There is no published data on the number of students who are SOGI minorities in the Malaysian education system. The legal criminalization and social prohibition of SOGI minorities might be the key reasons for the lack of such studies. Even if a study could be conducted, SOGI minority students might decide to conceal their identities during the process of research participant recruitment for fear of prejudice, oppression, and/or other negative consequences. Given the political and cultural climate in Malaysia, it is reasonably believed that public schools, especially those with a majority of Muslim students, are not supportive of SOGI minorities. School attire is one of the overt misfits noncisgender students experience when attending school. All public schools in Malaysia enforce gender-based attire rules (which could include school uniforms, hairstyles, and accessories) on students. This can be a great source of emotional discomfort or distress for students who do not identify with their gender assigned at birth (Sa’dan et al., 2018). In addition to internal psychological distress pertaining to being comfortable under their own skin and clothing, students may experience bullies at school for how their physical appearance and behavioral presentation are

144  Chiaothong Yong perceived by other people. Bullies who come in the form of emotional and/or physical are common among SOGI minority students (Sa’dan et al., 2018, Justice for Sisters 2012). In the meantime, from a school administrative level, such bullies might be underreported due to the stigma and discrimination associated with SOGI minorities. Due to the lack of research, there are no published statistics on bullies related to SOGI minorities’ discrimination in schools. Numerous existing research (e.g., D’Augelli, 2002; Connolly, Zervos, Barone, Johnson, & Joseph, 2016) conducted in the United States indicate greater mental health concerns (e.g., depression, suicidality) among SOGI minority youths. A study (Peltzer & Pengpid, 2016) that examined stress among SOGI minority students in five ASEAN countries (Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar Thailand, and Vietnam) found substantial relationships between SOGI minorities and mental health issues. After adjusting for age, sex, study year, marital status, religion, subjective economic status, social support, and country, SOGI minority identities predicted severe depression, suicide attempt, hazardous or harmful alcohol use, illicit drug use, and pathological internet use among the participants. In a Malaysian study that interviewed six counselors who had provided therapy to a total of 25 SOGI minority clients, 11 out of the 25 clients had attempted suicide in the past (Jamal, Amat, & Subhi, 2019). While there is no published study that investigates mental health concerns among SOGI minority school-age students in Malaysia, it is predicted that there is a strong relationship between SOGI minorities and mental health issues in this population. The overt oppression and discrimination of SOGI minorities inevitably push students to turn to the Internet for a safe haven and for a source of knowledge. With the increase in general internet and social media use, there is also an increase in the exposure of SOGI topics on the Internet and social media over the years. For instance, Malaysian researchers found an increase in the number of lesbian-related websites and social media groups, and in the number of visitors and followers to those websites or social media groups between December 2015 and July 2016 (Juaini, Halim, Mohamad, Riza, & Chik, 2017). Ten SOGI minority Malaysian participants aged between 20 and 34 in Tuah and Mazlan’s (2020) study described the main purposes of self-disclosing their sexuality on Twitter is to seek knowledge about the SOGI minorities and to freely express themselves while connecting with other people. On the one hand, SOGI minority children, young adolescents, and youths can learn more about their identities and freely express themselves by accessing SOGI information online that they might otherwise not be able to in real life. On the other hand, the lack of adult supervision on minors’ Internet usage might expose them to a range of risks or problems, such as learning inappropriate content, oversharing of personal information, and cyberbullying (American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 2015). In 2012, the deputy minister of education (mStar, 2012) urged teachers and parents to be more aware of children’s use of the Internet due to the widespread online information that promotes the expression of SOGI minorities.

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Malaysia  145 At a macrolevel, such increased attention shines a light on SOGI minorities, who have been mostly kept in the dark. This helps add to the momentum of the SOGI advocacy work done by NGOs in Malaysia. At a microlevel, such increased attention provides a space for questioning minors to be able to learn about their SOGI identities and for them to feel more confident in coming out to themselves or the people around them. However, such increased attention and acceptance of SOGI minorities are deeply concerning to stakeholders in the society that emphasizes religious and cultural values (Rahman, Nizam, & Azam, 2015). This trend is deemed by many as a threat to the established understanding of religious values and to the stabilization of society. As an alternative to the Internet, school-based sex education could serve as a reliable platform to disperse factual information about SOGI. However, sex education is inadequately covered in the Malaysian public education system. In November 2021, a UNICEF representative to Malaysia urged comprehensive and reliable sex education in schools to reduce social issues such as sexual grooming, teenage pregnancies, child marriage, and online/offline sexual violence (Teoh, 2021). Some studies (e.g., World Health Organization, 2007; Low, 2009) found insufficient sex education is the primary reason for high-risk behaviors and the transmission of HIV infection. For instance, a study that interviewed 15 Mak Nyah indicated awareness of HIV/AIDS but expressed a lack of understanding of the disease (Teh, 2008). Intersectionality

While being a SOGI minority is a criminal offense in the face of the Malaysian federal and Syariah laws, the enforcement of the laws varies by degree across states. Similarly, the types and levels of condemnation in schools vary across states. The intersectionality of geographical location, religion, and race plays a big role in a school’s attitude toward students. Schools in the cities tend to be more accepting or tolerating of SOGI minority students than schools in rural areas. In addition to Islam, Christianity has also traditionally expressed condemnation of SOGI minorities. The sacred scriptures from Buddhism and Hinduism, on the other hand, do not specifically address SOGI topics, leaving room for interpretation among their leaders and believers on their attitudes toward SOGI minorities. Hence, students in religious-based schools are more likely to face stigmas than their counterparts. Lastly, race also intersects with geographical location and religion. According to Article 160 of the Constitution of Malaysia (Federal Constitution, 2010), it is assumed that all Malays are born Muslim, and conversion of religion is prohibited among Muslims by the Syariah law. Hence, compared to Malay-medium national schools that comprise mostly Malay students and religious schools that are attended by Muslims, vernacular schools that are attended by mostly non-Malays may have greater tolerance toward SOGI minority students.

146  Chiaothong Yong Teachers’ Knowledge of and Response to SOGI Issues in Schools

Teachers’ knowledge in the public education system is a microcosm of society’s knowledge about SOGI. In consistency with the Ministry of Education’s stance, teachers in the public education system generally do not support SOGI minorities. Hence, educators are tasked with the responsibility of correcting students’ misconduct that deviates from the societal norms on SOGI. Counseling, preaching, and appreciation of religion have been widely recommended as interventions to treat students’ struggles with their SOGI identities and mental health issues, and to guide students back to the right way of living as Muslims (Mohd Nasir, Adli, & Fharizan, 2019; Haridi, Rahman, & Wazir, 2016). According to the then-deputy minister of education in 2012, school counselors are seen as the front-liners in stopping “the spread of LGBT among students” (The Star, 2012). In addition, school counselors should equip themselves with skills and knowledge in identifying and understanding SOGI minorities among students in order to provide appropriate guidance to students. Hence, in the eyes of the Education Ministry, teachers and school counselors are seen as the extension of the law and societal norms in ensuring law and norm conformity. In some cases (published statistics not available), Muslim students who are deemed deviants of the sexual and gender norms may be sent to religious camps to be re-educated to return to the morally right path. In 2011, a proSOGI rights group criticized the Terengganu state education’s decision of sending a group of 66 students (aged between 13 and 17) identified by teachers as Mak Nyah to a counseling camp to learn masculine behaviors (BBC, 2011). Stating that the program is a way to curb the growing population of SOGI minorities in Malaysia, the state’s education director argued that the students were invited to participate in the camp voluntarily, rather than involuntarily. While there is no published data on the number of students who have participated in such camps through the directives from schools, JAKIM reported as of September 2021 a total of 1,733 individuals had voluntarily participated in a three-day, two-night camp (Program Murkhayyam) co-organized by JAKIM and other Islamic organizations since its inception in 2011 (Iskandar & Parzi, 2015; Sharuddin, 2021). JAKIM reported such a program has successfully converted participants from SOGI minority identities. At the end of the program, participants reported they were able to reconnect with the religion, repent their personal responsibilities to God and to other people, and rebuild their self-confidence.

SOGI Minorities in School Settings: Hope for the Future

As SOGI minority students receive more attention at school, it is hoped that the school administrators recognize that meeting students with forceful punishment (such as involuntary conversion camp enrollment) is not necessarily the immediate and/or only response. Due to the high prevalence of mental

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Malaysia  147 health issues (including suicidality) among SOGI minority students as a result of prejudice and discrimination, school administrators should also focus on creating a safer (physically and mentally safer) environment to help students communicate their struggles while supporting students in finding a way that allows them to fit in the society where SOGI minorities are deemed legally and morally wrong. Additionally, a crucial way to create a safer learning environment is by curbing bullies, prejudice, and discrimination toward SOGI minority students at schools, starting from the school administration and working down to the student body. Most of the school-based interventions have been provided to the Muslim student body in Malay-medium national schools and in religious schools. It is hoped that there will be more supportive interventions tailored to students of other races and to students of other school types. Given the current political and religious climate in Malaysia, a legislative change toward the protection of the basic physical and emotional safety of SOGI minorities is a long-overdue mission, but also a highly unlikely event in the near future. At the same time, the adverse impact experienced by schoolage students as a result of environmental hostility and negativity at such a young age can be long-lasting at both individual and societal levels. At an individual level, students are more likely to experience decreased self-esteem, increased mental health issues, increased substance use, decreased academic performance, decreased opportunities to achieve their academic potential and/ or career aspirations, and misconceptions of healthy sexual health and relationships (Peltzer & Pengpid, 2016; Teh, 1998). These would then likely lead to societal problems such as substance use issues, the transmission of HIV/AIDS, workplace harassment/discrimination, decreased workforce, and increased sex workers. Research on SOGI and School Life in Malaysia The stigma and discrimination toward the SOGI minority community are likely to be the biggest barriers to conducting large-scale, methodologically sound research. Hence, most of the current research on the SOGI minority population is qualitative research on a small sample size that is not representative of the population. To date, this author is only able to find a few studies about SOGI minorities and school-age students. A qualitative study conducted by Zaini, Surat, and Amat (2021) provides an understanding of the role of religion in high school students’ attitudes toward homosexuality. Two validated questionnaires were used in this study: The Sex Education and Knowledge about Homosexuality Questionnaire (SEKHQ) and the Attitudes Towards Homosexuals Questionnaire (AHQ). Based on the responses gathered from the 136 high school students who were randomly sampled from two Islamic schools, the researchers found that gender and age did not have any influence on the respondents’ knowledge and attitude toward homosexuality. Also, the researchers found that there is no correlation between knowledge and attitude toward homosexuality. Among the respondents,

148  Chiaothong Yong having a more accurate knowledge of homosexuality is not associated with having a more positive attitude toward homosexuality. Taking a closer look at the respondents’ mean scores on these questionnaires might give us a very rough idea of the level of understanding and acceptance toward the nonheterosexual community. The total score of the SEKHQ could range between 0 and 32, with higher scores indicating greater knowledge of homosexuality. On this questionnaire, the male respondents’ mean score was 7.24, and female respondents’ mean score was 7.65. The respondents’ mean scores, if representative of the religious school students population, suggest a lower knowledge of the lesbian and gay community among students in Islamic high schools. The total score of the AHQ could range between 20 and 100, with high scores indicating a more negative attitude toward individuals who identify with homosexuality. The male respondents’ mean score was 61.02, and the female respondents’ mean score was 59.77 on this questionnaire. The respondents’ mean scores on the AHQ suggest higher negativity toward the lesbian and gay community among Islamic high school students. Based on their findings in this study, the researchers state that it might be difficult for the respondents to accept homosexuality, despite having knowledge of this issue, because homosexuality is prohibited in the face of Islam. The findings from this study are consistent with the general public’s knowledge and attitude toward SOGI minorities. Among the data published in this study, a piece of interesting information was found in the demographic information of the randomly selected survey participants. Despite the stigma and discrimination faced by SOGI minority students in Islamic schools, 4 (2.9%) out of the total of 136 respondents identified themselves as homosexual in the study. Two (1.5%) out of the total respondents identified as bisexual. In other words, a total of about 4.4% of respondents in this study identified with either one of the lesbian, gay, or bisexual identities. The percentage of respondents who self-identified as LGB in this study is similar to what has been estimated in the United States. Based on the data gathered from 11 large, population-based surveys conducted in the United States and 4 other countries, it is estimated that 3.5% of the adults in the United States identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual (Gates, 2011). In addition to religion, researchers have also studied other factors that are associated with SOGI minority students. In a qualitative study that interviewed a total of six Malay students aged between 14 and 18, the researchers studied the respondents’ religious practices, family relationships, and social relationships (Ahmad, Adnan, Satar, Sulaiman, Azreena, Abidin, & Zain, 2015). Based on their findings, the researchers concluded that a low level of religious practice, an emotional connection to same-sex partners, and poor communication with family members are some of the main factors that lead to one’s involvement in a lesbian lifestyle. Despite her best efforts, this author could only find two published articles that studied school-age students. More efforts and resources should also be invested into understanding and supporting school-age children and

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Malaysia  149 adolescents who identify as SOGI minorities. Furthermore, it would be pertinent to study factors such as religion, race, cultural beliefs, family and social support, geographical location, and school type among school-age students. Interventions from Both Sides Given the two opposing camps (i.e., the governmental and religious agencies versus pro-SOGI NGOs) on the acceptance of the SOGI minority community in Malaysia, this section aims to provide the interventions that have been proposed by both sides. Governmental and/or Religious Agencies

Some researchers and policymakers advocate for greater understanding and acceptance of the SOGI minority community during the process of helping them to return to the righteous path. For instance, Haridi et al. (2016) propose religious preaching that includes four major components: religious teachings, leisure activities, social/community building, and personality building. Other interventions include Islamic counseling, Islamic psychotherapy, outreach, motivation camp, and social work (Ismail, Nasri, Yahaya, Jamal, & Wakil, 2020). These interventions aim at guiding SOGI minorities away from LGBT+-related behaviors by getting more connected to religious teachings. To this author’s knowledge, almost all of these interventions are primarily based on Islamic teachings, and they are not intended for the general Malaysian population who are non-Muslims. There is a lack of attention or effort from the government or state level in helping non-Muslims. Pro-SOGI NGOs and Allies

Strongly opposed to conversion-type interventions, pro-SOGI allies and NGOs call for SOGI-affirming counseling (e.g., Tan, 2021). Apart from personal factors, such as self-awareness of well-being and openness to help, external factors, which include the availability of resources and mental health professionals’ professional competency, play an important role in increasing the likelihood of SOGI minorities’ help-seeking behaviors. Help-seeking behaviors can be more challenging among school-age students who are limited by their self-understanding, awareness of resources, availability of resources, decision-making autonomy, and financial means. Kyle K. H. Tan (2021), a researcher who endorses SOGI-affirmative psychology, published an article to call for greater awareness of the cisheterosexism experienced by SOGI minorities in Malaysia. Recognizing the potential adverse impact on psychologists’ career by advocating for the SOGI minority community, Tan (2021) encourage psychologists to identify best practices in therapy and to provide referrals to other affirming psychologists when needed by working closely with local pro-SOGI organizations. Consistent with the

150  Chiaothong Yong American Psychological Association’s recommendations of urging all mental health professionals to lead the way in removing the mental illness stigma associated with SOGI minorities (DeLeon, 1998), Jamal, Subhi, and Amat (2021) discussed the professional competencies (i.e., knowledge, skills, and ethics) a counselor should equip when working with SOGI minority clients. The researchers described the importance of counselors putting aside their personal values and judgments when working with SOGI minority clients. A qualitative study that interviewed a total of 28 SOGI minority participants (aged between 21 and 34) found that direct or indirect negative experiences with mental health professionals were one of the most commonly cited barriers to seeking professional help (Hta, Tam, Au, Yeoh, Tan, Lee, & Yong, 2021). The researchers identified five main barriers to help-seeking behaviors to professional mental health services: (1) internal resistance, (2) a lack of resources and information about mental health, (3) limited availability and accessibility to services, (4) negative perception of mental health services/ professionals, and (5) mental health professionals’ stigma against the SOGI minority community. The following four main facilitators were related to participants’ willingness to seek help from mental health professionals: (1) self-awareness, (2) resources and information about mental health services, (3) accessibility and availability of services, and (4) positive attitudes and beliefs about mental health professionals. However, the professional competencies in working with SOGI minorities in an affirming way directly conflict with the stance taken by the Education Ministry, which aims to prevent students from sexual and gender norms deviation. Hence, school counselors who wish to provide SOGI-affirming care could be caught in a tough dilemma between their professional ethics and their agencies’ expectations and guidelines. In addition to the challenges of finding SOGI-affirming counselors, Malaysia faces a short supply of mental health professionals in the country (Bernama, 2019). This further limits the availability, accessibility, and affordability of SOGI-affirming mental health services in the country. Moreover, compared to adults, minors who identify as SOGI minorities may experience greater challenges in recognizing their mental health and emotional needs, gaining knowledge of available resources, accessing the scarce SOGI-affirming resources, receiving their parents’ or guardians’ support to seek SOGI-affirming professional help, and/or affording mental health services. Further Challenges

While both sides would agree that the laws and regulations are not the panacea, the courts have been the key battlefield in addressing SOGI issues. The ongoing debate between two the oppositions of morality and societal norms versus SOGI human rights seems almost impossible to be resolved in Malaysia in the near future. In the meantime, SOGI minority students at schools continue to experience internal mental health struggles and environmental stress

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Malaysia  151 as a result of the social rejection of their identities. Supporting and guiding students in achieving their fullest potential through their learning journey is one of the most important missions in the education system. However, such a mission can be an especially challenging one for SOGI minority students in Malaysia, regardless of whichever side of the debate one takes on. References AFP. (2018, August 14). Two in Terengganu to be caned for lesbian sex. New Straits Times. https://www.nst.com.my/news/crime-courts/2018/08/401343/two-terengganube-caned-lesbian-sex Ahmad, M. I., Adnan, H. A., Satar, J. A., Sulaiman, W. S. W., Azreena, W. J., Abidin, Z.J., & Zain, W. M. W. M. S. (2015). Faktor dan cara gaya hidup serta kemungkinan kembali pulih dalam kalangan lesbian: Satu kajian kes. Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities. Retrieved March 30, 2022, from http://journalarticle.ukm.my/9323/ 1/001-015_Ahmad_et_al._Gaya_Hidup_Lesbian.pdf American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. (2015, October). Internet use in children. https://www.aacap.org/AACAP/Families_and_Youth/Facts_for_Families/ FFF-Guide/Children-Online-059.aspx American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). American Psychiatric Association. (2020, November). What is gender dysphoria? https:// www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/gender-dysphoria/what-is-gender-dysphoria Amin, A.M. (2019, June 12). LGBT rights are western imports. New Straits Times. https://www.nst.com.my/opinion/letters/2019/06/495844/lgbt-rights-are-westernimports Andaya, B. W., & Andaya, L. Y. (2016). A history of Malaysia. (3rd ed.). Red Globe Press. Asia Pacific Transgender Network. (2017). Legal gender recognition in Malaysia. A legal & policy review in the context of human rights. United Nations Development Programme. https://weareaptn.org/resource/legal-gender-recognition-in-malaysia-alegal-and-policy-review-in-the-context-of-human-rights/ Aziz, M. S. A., Ismail, H., Awang, J., Rahman, N. F. A., & Yusof, M. I. M. (2021). The judicial interpretation of Syariah and civil court for non-Muslim transgender. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 11(6), 135–151. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v11-i6/10103 Azmi, H. (2018, September 21). Malaysia rejects same-sex marriage and LGBT, Mahathir says. Benar News. https://www.benarnews.org/english/news/malaysian/lgbtstatement-09212018153933.html BBC. (2011, April 19). ‘Effeminate’ boys in Malaysia sent to ‘anti-gay’ camp. BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-13133589 Bernama. (2018, August 11). Bertemu Nisha Ayub tidak bermakna bersetuju perjuangan LGBT – Mujahid. Astro Awani. https://www.astroawani.com/berita-malaysia/ bertemu-nisha-ayub-tidak-bermakna-bersetuju-perjuangan-lgbt-mujahid-182780 Bernama. (2019, October 10). Not enough professional counsellors in Malaysia, says DPM. Malay Mail. https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2019/10/10/ not-enough-professional-counsellors-in-malaysia-says-dpm/1799061 Commonwealth Legal Information Institute. (n.d.). Minor Offences Act 1955 (Revised 1987). http://www.commonlii.org/my/legis/consol_act/moa19551987225/

152  Chiaothong Yong Connolly, M. D., Zervos, M. J., Barone II, C. J., Johnson, C. C., & Joseph, C. L. (2016). The mental health of transgender youth: Advances in understanding. Journal of Adolescent Health, 59(5), 489–495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2016.06.012 D’Augelli, A. R. (2002). Mental health problems among lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths ages 14 to 21. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 7(3), 433–456. https:// doi.org/10.1177%2F1359104502007003010 DeLeon, P. H. (1998). Proceedings of the American Psychological Association, Incorporated, for the legislative year 1997: Minutes of the annual meeting of the Council of Representatives. American Psychologist, 53(8), 882–939. https://doi.org/10.103 7/0003-066X.53.8.882 Department of Statistics Malaysia Official Website. (2022a). Current Population Estimates, Malaysia, 2021. https://www.dosm.gov.my/v1/index.php?r=column/ c t h e m e B y C at & c at = 1 5 5 & bu l _ i d = Z j J O S n p J R 2 1 s QW V U c U p 6 O D Ru d m5JZz09&menu_id=L0pheU43NWJwRWVSZklWdzQ4TlhUUT09 Department of Statistics Malaysia Official Website. (2022b). Population Distribution and Basic Demographic Characteristic Report 2010 (Updated: 05/08/2011). https:// www.dosm.gov.my/v1/index.php?r=column/ctheme&menu_id=L0pheU43N WJwRWVSZklWdzQ4TlhUUT09&bul_id=MDMxdHZjWTk1SjFzTzNkRX YzcVZjdz09 Ellis-Petersen, H. (2018, August 22). Malaysia accused of ‘state-sponsored homophobia’ after LGBT crackdown. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/ aug/22/malaysia-accused-of-state-sponsored-homophobia-after-lgbt-crackdown Federal Constitution. (2010). Federal constitution, reprint. As at 1 November 2010. Office of the Legal Advisor. https://ppuu.upm.edu.my/upload/dokumen/20180726155749RUJ_1_ FEDERAL_CONSTITUTION_ULANG_CETAK_2016.pdf France-Presse, A. (2021, February 25). Malaysian wins challenge against Islamic law banning gay sex. Courthouse News Service. https://www.courthousenews.com/ malaysian-wins-challenge-against-islamic-law-banning-gay-sex/ Gates, G.J. (2011). How many people are lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender? The Williams Institute. https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/HowMany-People-LGBT-Apr-2011.pdf Gopal, P. S., & Karupiah, P. (2013). Indian diaspora and urban poverty: A Malaysian perspective. Diaspora Studies, 6(2), 103–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/0973957 2.2013.853441 Haridi, N. H., Rahman, K. A., & Wazir, R. (2016). Metodologi dakwah terhadap golongan lesbian, gay, biseksual dan transgender (lgbt). Jurnal Pengajian Islam, 9(2), 103–119. Retrieved March 30, 2022, from https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/340574802_Metodologi_Dakwah_Terhadap_Golongan_Lesbian_ GAY_Biseksual_Dan_Transgender_LGBT Hesamuddin, D. M., Harris, M. A. D. A., Mohammad Din, M. M., & Mohd Nor, N. (2019). The rising of the LGBT in Malaysia. e-Journal of Media & Society (e-JOMS), 3, 1–13. Retrieved March 30, 2022, from https://ir.uitm.edu.my/id/ eprint/29345/1/29345.pdf Hta, M. K. Z., Tam, C. L., Au, S. Y., Yeoh, G., Tan, M. M., Lee, Z. Y., & Yong, V. V. (2021). Barriers and facilitators to professional mental health help-seeking behavior: Perspective of Malaysian LGBT individuals. Journal of LGBTQ Issues in Counseling, 15(1), 38–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/15538605.2021.1868373 Institute for Public Health. (2018). National health and morbidity survey (NHMS) 2017: Key findings from the adolescent health and nutrition surveys. National

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Malaysia  153 Institutes of Health, Ministry of Health Malaysia. https://iku.moh.gov.my/images/ IKU/Document/REPORT/NHMS2017/NHMS2017Infographic.pdf Iskandar, P.W. & Parzi, M.N. (2015, July 24). Program Mukhayyam pulih golongan LGBT. Berita Harian Online. https://www.bharian.com.my/bhplus-old/2015/07/69741/ program-mukhayyam-pulih-golongan-lgbt Ismail, M. A. M., Yahaya, M. H., Jamal, I. H., & Wakil, M. N. A. (2020). Isu LGBT di Malaysia: Satu tinjauan terhadap aspek kajian. INSLA E-Proceedings, 3(1), 459– 470. Retrieved March 30, 2022, from https://insla.usim.edu.my/index.php/ eproceeding/article/view/55 Jabatan Kemajuan Islam Malaysia. (2015). Hadis-hadis sahih berkaitan perlakuan LGBT (lesbian, gay, biseksual dan transgender). Jabatan Kemajuan Islam Malaysia. https://www.islam.gov.my/images/ePenerbitan/Hadis-hadis_Sahih_Berkaitan_Per lakuan_LGBT.pdf Jamal, S. H., Amat, S., & Subhi, N. (2019). Kecenderungan Cubaan Membunuh Diri dalam Kalangan Gay dan Lesbian di Malaysia. Jurnal Pendidikan Malaysia, 44 (1), Isu Khas, 151–162. https://doi.org/10.17576/JPEN-2019-44.01SI-12 Jamal, S.H., Subhi, N. & Amat, S. (2021). Pengetahuan kaunselor dalam memahami klien gay dan lesbian. Akademika, 91(2), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.17576/akad-2021-9102-01 Jo-Ann, D. (2012). Seksualiti Merdeka: Threat to national security? Bar Council Malaysia. https://www.malaysianbar.org.my/article/news/legal-and-general-news/legalnews/seksualiti-merdeka-threat-to-national-security Juaini, N. J. M., Halim, M. S. A., Mohamad, L., Riza, N., & Chik, A. (2017). Social media and lesbians in Malaysia. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 7(11), 1005–1014. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v7-i11/3539 Justice for Sisters. (2012, October 17). Golongan transgender juga mempunyai hak! Wordpress. https://justiceforsisters.wordpress.com/2012/10/17/golongan-transgenderjuga-mempunyai-hak/ Justice for Sisters. (2017, January 22). Uphold right to identity of transgender persons. Malaysiakini. https://www.malaysiakini.com/letters/368934 Latiff, R. (2021, June 24). Malaysia seeks stricter sharia laws for “promoting LGBT lifestyle.”Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/malaysia-seeks-strictersharia-laws-promoting-lgbt-lifestyle-2021-06-24/ Laver, M. K. (2015, August 21). Malaysian prime minister: Government will not defend LGBT rights. Washington Blade. https://www.washingtonblade.com/2015/08/21/ malaysian-prime-minister-government-will-not-defend-lgbt-rights/ Lee, J. C. (2012). Sexuality rights activism in Malaysia: The case of Seksualiti Merdeka. In M. Ford (Ed.), Social activism in Southeast Asia (pp. 184–200). Routledge. Low, W. Y. (2009). Malaysian youth sexuality: Issues and challenges. Journal of Health and Translational Medicine, 12(1), 3–14. Retrieved March 30, 2022, from http:// mojem.um.edu.my/index.php/jummec/article/view/4610 Ma, L. J. C. (2003). Safe, place, and transnationalism in the Chinese diaspora. In L. J. C. Ma & C. Cartier (Eds.), Diaspora and social restructuring in postcolonial Malaysia. The Chinese diaspora: Space, place, mobility, and identity (pp. 1–50). Rowman & Littlefield. Manalastas, E. J., Ojanen, T. T., Torre, B. A., Ratanashevorn, R., Hong, B. C. C., Kumaresan, V., & Veeramuthu, V. (2017). Homonegativity in Southeast Asia: Attitudes toward lesbians and gay men in Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam. Asia-Pacific Social Science Review, 17(1), 25–33. https:// pages.upd.edu.ph/ejmanalastas/publications/homonegativity-southeast-asia-attitudestoward-lesbians-and-gay-men-indonesia-malaysia

154  Chiaothong Yong McKirdy, E. (2019, March 7). There are no gay people in Malaysia says tourism minister. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/07/asia/malaysia-tourism-minister-gaydenial-intl/index.html Mohd Nasir, M. A., Tahrir Adli, A. H., & Fharizan, N. F. (2019). A Person-Centered Therapy Approach In Handling Counseling Cases For Gay And Lesbian Group. Perdana: International Journal of Academic Research, 6(2), 63–75. Retrieved March 30, 2022, from http://perdanajournal.com/index.php/perdanajournal/article/view/59 mStar. (2012, October 4). Guru kaunseling mampu cegah lgbt di sekolah. mStar. https://www.mstar.com.my/lokal/semasa/2012/10/04/guru-kaunselingmampu-cegah-lgbt-di-sekolah Muhammed, A. A., & Amuda, Y. J. (2018). LGBT: An evaluation of shariah provisions and the laws of Malaysia and Nigeria. Global Journal Al-Thaqafah (GJAT), 8(1), 15– 29. Retrieved March 30, 2022, from http://www.gjat.my/gjat062018/GJAT062018-2.pdf Nasohah, Z. (2005). Undang-undang Penguatkuasaan Fatwa di Malaysia. ISLAMIYYAT, 27(1), 25–44. Retrieved March 30, 2022, from https://www.researchgate.net/ profile/Zaini-Nasohah/publication/237600975_Undang-Undang_Penguatkuasaan_ Fatwa_di_Malaysia/links/564a80f608ae9cd9c826c9cd/Undang-Undang-Penguat kuasaan-Fatwa-di-Malaysia.pdf Outright Action International. (2012, March 9). Malaysian court upholds ban on sexuality rights festival, “Seksualiti Merdeka.” https://outrightinternational.org/content/ malaysian-court-upholds-ban-sexuality-rights-festival-seksualiti-merdeka Peltzer, K., & Pengpid, S. (2016). Minority stress among lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) university students in ASEAN countries: Associations with poor mental health and addictive behavior. Gender and Behaviour, 14(3), 7806–7815. Retrieved March 30, 2022, from https://journals.co.za/doi/pdf/10.10520/EJC-64e407fe4?casa_ t o ke n = i 8 P 4 J I f G F 8 0 A A A A A % 3 A q x D 3 G E v P U J U Y 0 h z l rc q t 1 N L 8 Z T4nx-p2lYxAzEafRqJxTCp9WzHUN7T_8ZjErIPUVsP7t3KOWVAPTqE Rahman, K. A. A., Nizam, M. M., & Azam, A. B. M. (2015). Profil Masyarakat Melayu Malaysia Di Media Sosial Yang Mempromosikan LGBT. Academia. Retrieved March 30, 2022, from https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/45361509/Profil_ Melayu__FORMAT_CHICAGO_-with-cover-page-v2.pdf ?Expires=164 8698535&Signature=dFJM9DOB2RIBDHmjf-Aa8YZo716ubpfu0HBHUtK9Z VGw~FGJ~nIu4iu0BqOMWEUvjug8X-EoXQZ3AH18tgUndJ4loRN9zT1eOqF GX2sysnpBNNxeB4szB~-x4-5hHO0ezYGCqhHrMtcN2fOC~InoKK2ax uD5Xu-6rZYCpD37hKoXeMI9kcbZqxcKgoAJS5Jhs7nW4l30ZjgkdnCXd QDccjAbpoq96IgI0VmOfeUnDN~0AK-Q~4K2b2HDkVnimnFAda-rT MX1LAUZXaT~yN2dAKsJHCdwsSJAuh6Q945xWvGeeQpfL3Pm~wBZUvbd K T n s v M v 3 Y P D J 2 e o M 7 c P S c g X M WA _ _ & K e y - P a i r - I d = A P K A J L O HF5GGSLRBV4ZA Sa'dan, A. A., Awang, J., & Rahman, N. F. A. (2018). A preliminary study on transgender issues: A case study on Justice for Sister (JFS) as a new social movement in Malaysia. In 3rd international seminar on Islamic Thought. Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia. Retrieved March 30, 2022, from http://www.ukm.my/isoit/wp-content/uploads/ 2018/09/Sadan-Jaffary-Farhana-1.pdf Sabramani, V., Idris, I. B., Ismail, H., Nadarajaw, T., Zakaria, E., & Kamaluddin, M. R. (2021). Bullying and its associated individual, peer, family and school factors: Evidence from Malaysian National Secondary School Students. International journal of environmental research and public health, 18(13), 7208. https://doi.org/10.3390/ ijerph18137208

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Malaysia  155 Sharuddin, Z. (2021, September). LGBT insaf selepas sertai program Mukhayyam. HarakahDaily. https://harakahdaily.net/index.php/2021/09/23/lgbt-insaf-selepas-sertaiprogram-mukhayyam/ Shogo, I. (2017, April 7). Tackling sex re-assignment surgery in Malaysia. New Mandala. https://www.newmandala.org/tackling-sex-re-assignment-surgery-malaysia/ Su-Lyn, B. (2018, August 8). LGBT activists’ portraits removed from George Town Festival exhibition. Malay Mail. https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2018/08/08/ lgbt-activists-portraits-removed-from-george-town-festival-exhibition/1660198 Tan, K. K. H. (2021). It’s Time to Consider LGBTQ-Affirmative Psychology in Malaysia. Journal of Psychosexual Health, 4(1), 43–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/26318318211060484 Teh, Y. K. (1998). Understanding the problems of mak nyahs (male transsexuals) in Malaysia. South East Asia Research, 6(2), 165–180. https://doi.org/10.117 7/0967828X9800600204 Teh, Y. K. (2008). HIV-related needs for safety among male-to-female transsexuals (mak nyah) in Malaysia. Journal of Social Aspects of HIV/AIDS, 5(4), 178–185. Retrieved March 30, 2022, from https://www.ajol.info/index.php/saharaj/article/ view/30147 Teoh, M. (2021, November 22). Let’s talk about sex: Why having sex education in schools is so important. The Star. https://www.thestar.com.my/lifestyle/family/2021/11/22/ why-it039s-so-important-to-have-comprehensive-sex-education-in-schools The Star. (2012, September 20). Education Ministry committed to preventing LGBT phenomenon in schools. The Star. https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2012/09/20/ education-ministry-committed-to-preventing-lgbt-phenomenon-in-schools The Straits Times. (2014, October 28). Anwar Ibrahim’s sodomy cases: What you need to know. The Straits Times. https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/anwar-ibrahimssodomy-cases-what-you-need-to-know Tuah, K. M., & Mazlan, U. S. (2020). Twitter as Safe Space for Self-Disclosure among Malaysian LGBTQ Youths. Jurnal Komunikasi: Malaysian Journal of Communication, 36(1), 436–448. Retrieved March 30, 2022, from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/ Khadijah-Mohamad-Tuah/publication/341890780_Twitter_as_Safe_Space_for_ Self-Disclosure_among_Malaysian_LGBTQ_Youths/links/5f886112a6fdccfd7b633a6a/ Twitter-as-Safe-Space-for-Self-Disclosure-among-Malaysian-LGBTQ-Youths.pdf UNESCO. (2016). Out in the open: Education sector responses to violence based on sexual orientation and gender identity/expression. UNESCO. https://unesdoc. unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000244756?posInSet=11&queryId=48c1c76b-3bcd-48d19f06-14a71a8207ce Wei, C. L., Baharuddin, A., Abdullah, R., Abdullah, Z., & Ern, K. P. C. (2012). Transgenderism in Malaysia. Journal of Dharma, 37(1), 79–96. Retrieved March 30, 2022, from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Chang-Lee-Wei/publication/ 2 9 8 4 2 2 3 9 2 _ Tr a n s g e n d e r i s m _ i n _ M a l ay s i a / l i n k s / 5 7 4 4 0 e 5 8 0 8 a e 9 f 7 4 1 b3a24be/Transgenderism-in-Malaysia.pdf World Health Organization. (2007). Sexual and reproductive health of adolescents and youths in Malaysia: A review of literature and projects. World Health Organization. http://www.wpro.who.int/publications/PUB_9789290612636/en/index.html. Zaini, S. N., Surat, S., & Amat, S. (2021). Hubungan antara Pengetahuan dan Sikap Terhadap Homoseksual dalam kalangan Pelajar Sekolah Agama. Malaysian Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 6(2), 123–134. Retrieved March 30, 2022, from https://msocialsciences.com/index.php/mjssh/article/view/671

9

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and School Life in India Tushar Singh, Harleen Kaur, and Shalini Mittal

Introduction Sexual orientation and gender identities (SOGIs) are increasingly becoming a part of the global debates and are accelerating social changes. With the efforts of several human rights activists, some progress has been made in providing equal rights to gender and sexual minorities. However, it is crucial not to take this progress for granted. The situation described by Ferfolja and Hopkins (2013) remains unchanged, schools continue to remain a place where sexual and gender minorities are marginalized and are often silenced. In addition, stereotypes and outdated information continue to perpetuate the marginalization of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, questioning, queer, and so on (LGBTQ+) individuals. Moreover, the academic and scientific discourse about LGBTQ+ people began much later, and the focus continues to be limited to a few issues. According to Graves (2015), the research on LGBTQ issues in higher education in the United States began after 1998, following the murder of Matthew Shephard. She also pointed out that 20% of all education research on LGBTQ focuses on safety, health, and stigma. Even in India, the first PRIDE march was organized in 1999. Despite that, the inclusive education of LGBTQ+ people remains a distant dream. Therefore, it is crucial to discuss the issues of sexual and gender identities to provide momentum to social changes and create an inclusive school environment. Minorities in Indian Society

Defining minorities in India is a difficult task. It is crucial to note that although the Indian Constitution mentions the term “minority/minorities,” it does not define it in articles 29 to 30 and 350A to 350B. It restricts the usage of the term to refer to religious and linguistic minorities. Currently, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, Jain, Buddhists, and Zoroastrians have been identified as religious minorities by the Central Government of India. Linguistic minorities are recognized state-wise and can be defined as a “section of citizens having a distinct language, culture, and script.” These definitions of minorities are DOI: 10.4324/9781003430414-9

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in India  157 oversimplistic and share the essential characteristic of being “nondominant.” The constitutional rights of minorities in India can be categorized under both a common domain and a separate domain. The common domain includes the rights granted to all the citizens of India, whereas the separate domain includes rights that are specifically applicable to minority communities. To safeguard the rights and interests of minorities, the Government of India established the Minorities Commission in 1978, which was later turned into a statutory body and was renamed the National Commission for Minorities in 1992 (Massey, 2003). Several pieces of research are indicative of the social and economic disparity among the minority communities of India. Moreover, gender disparity in terms of lower levels of education (Singh & Rabindranath, 2020), health (Saikia, Moradhvaj & Bora. 2016), wage (Rustagi, 2005), and social status (Kohli, 2017) for women further blight the developmental aspects of the country. However, more than men and women from such minority communities, LGBTQ+ people in the country experience more discrimination. After a prolonged struggle, their rights are recognized yet they can’t exercise all fundamental rights given to most of the other Indian people. SOGI and Indian Culture

The diversified land of India owns pertinent cultures, and among them, heteronormativity is firmly woven into the fabric of the society. It is a land of closed and rigid heritage where accommodation of gender and sexual minorities is often difficult. Law attempts to uphold their fundamental rights but fails to curtail the prevalent stereotypes embedded in the Indian society. As a result, there is always scant awareness about the various sexual and gender identities. The first step toward awareness can be taken by understanding their status of achieved human rights. On March 26, 2007, human rights law experts affiliated with the United Nations (UN) announced and laid out the 29 Yogyakarta principles. Later in November 2017, “Yogyakarta Principles Plus 10” was supplemented by the already existing regulations. These principles were set to comprehensively identify SOGIs and minorities, and make them a part of society by respecting and safeguarding their human rights. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, UN, endorses these Principles and makes sure that these are implemented and integrated at all levels. They are completely against any violation of LGBTQ+ human rights. The compliance with these principles in India could be seen when these principles were legally and socially interpreted as per the Indian Constitution and then endorsed in society (Jain, & DasGupta, 2021; Hynes et al., 2014, 2016; Chase, 2016). Since ancient times, Indian society has given considerable importance to the Vedas written many thousand years ago. These are manuscripts in the Sanskrit language. For example, one of the Vedas, “the Rigveda,” extensively explains the base of homosexuality in Indian culture. Moreover, the representation of homosexuality has traces in the engraved “homosexual scriptures” in the holy

158  Tushar Singh et al. places of Khujarao (Madhya Pradesh), Konark, and Puri (Odhisha). Furthermore, a book of Indian origin titled Vātsyāyana’s Kāmasūtra contains a chapter titled “Auparishtaka” that ponders and describes homosexuality. Having such instances present, it can be safely assumed that the Hinduism has accepted various forms of sexuality in the ancient and medieval times (Chakrapani, Newman, & Noronha 2018; Agoramoorthy, & Hsu, 2015). There are several instances in Indian mythology that indicate the existence of gender variants and their acceptance in the cultures. Pattanaik (2014) calls attention to Shikhandi, who turned into a man to satisfy her wife; Chudala, who turned to a woman for the sake of her husband’s enlightenment; and even Mahadeva, who turned into a woman so that he could bare a devotee’s child. The LGBTQ+ students in India are more commonly known as either LGBT youth or LGBT students. It is well-known that our perceptions and schemas are shaped during our early cognitive development when we are in our student phase. During their developmental stages, SOGIs in India identify themselves as “queer,” “transgender persons,” “men who have sex with men,” “hijra,” “Kothi,” “panthi,” “aravanis,” “shiv shaktis,” “homosexuals,” “Indian gay men,” “nonheterosexuals,” “bisexuals,” “pansexuals,” and “gender fluid” (Dutta, 2019; Stief, 2017). The coming out phase for them is the most vital and challenging phase of their lives. When “coming out,” these children decide to accept and reveal their SOGI status to the rest of the society, i.e., their friends, family, teachers, and acquaintances (Dunlap, 2014). The conservative nature of the Indian society makes this process challenging for them and hinders their emotional, behavioral, and overall well-being (Wandrekar & Nigudkar, 2020). Due to the unwelcoming perception of people toward LGBTQ+, such individuals face many challenges throughout their lives. They are often forced to leave their houses and remain obscured; they are ridiculed; they face societal, familial, and peer rejection resulting in separation from their biological families in several cases (Arvind et al., 2021; Bhattacharya & Ghosh, 2020; Prasad, 2016). During such a difficult phase, they often choose to spend the rest of their lives in a “Gharana,” a Hindi term that signifies shelter. This place, which becomes an intrareligious community for transgender persons, has a unique sense of belongingness, as it provides safety for them. In a “gharana,” each of the LGBTQ+ individuals is known as a “chela” and becomes a member of the clan. The teacher or the guru (a leader of the distinguished Gharana) adopts these chelas and trains them the ways to live their lives and earn their livelihood. This place not only becomes a safe house for them but also becomes indispensable to their identity formation. This parallel family provides them with structural stability and teaches them to be disciplined. A “Gharana” offers acceptance to every “hijra” (one who wishes to make the transition from being a male to being a female) from all intersections of life such as class, color, geographical location, socioeconomic status, and religion. Here they get an opportunity to be exposed to all Indian cultures under one shade. However, each “Gharana” has its own culture, where the child identifies with other fellow chelas and embraces this unique “given” culture. Although this shelter is a blessing to this community, it

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in India  159 is a significant setback for their literacy count. The culture followed by them is restrictive. As a result, the SOGI children do not get enrolled in schools and remain deprived of formal school education. Consequently, there are almost no employment opportunities accessible to them. However, over time, these gurus have started acknowledging that even these children need to attend school to receive formal education to broaden the horizon of livelihood and subsequently strengthen their community. So, the “Gharana” though serves as an institution for their disciples; they struggle to formally educate these children (Mariam, 2013). Section 377 and the Naz Foundation Judgment

In 1861, Section 377 of the Indian Panel Code was imposed by the British period and the same continued even after India’s independence. This section “criminalized” same-sex behavior, homosexuality, and sexual practices deemed unnatural within the colonized territories (Ranchhodas and Thakore, 1967; Waites, 2014). However, after a long struggle with such labeling, an India-based nongovernmental organization named “Naz Foundation,” which has been working for the intervention and prevention of HIV/AIDS since 1994, filed a petition in the high court of Delhi (India) challenging the constitutional validity of the Indian Penal Code Section 377. The foundation claimed that this section contravenes the following articles of the Indian Constitution: Article 14 (upholds the right to equality), Article 15 (caters to the prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of sex), Article 19 (provides the right to privacy and dignity), and Article 21 (outlines the right to life and liberty; Sharma, 2021). Additionally, the petition also highlighted the rights of people working with the LGBTI community, men having sex with men, Hijra, Kothis, and people who recognize other forms of sexual and gender variants (MacKinnon, 2006; Waites, 2014). Consequently, after hearing this appeal, the court passed the judgment decriminalizing homosexuality on the grounds that it violates the rights provided by the Indian Constitution to its citizens (Jain, 2017a,b). Despite decriminalization, the decision does not guarantee the social legitimacy of homosexuality within the country. Additionally, the court while referring to the “Yogyakarta Principles” identified “Hijra” as a group within the LGBTQ+ community that is deprived of their fundamental human rights (Lennox, & Waites, 2013, p. 572). Though the decriminalization of same-sex relations helped to safeguard the rights of these individuals and limit the social stigma prevalent in the country, it failed to eradicate it (Jain, 2017b). However, this judgment ensured that they are at least a step closer to rebuilding their lost hopes and self-esteem (Sheikh, 2013). Decriminalization may also lead to greater levels of self-acceptance, sound psychological well-being, and emotional security within the community. However, the conversation still has long leaps to take. The court’s decision comes with the label of “unnatural” for the act of homosexuality, which is a misleading term, as even oral and anal sexual practices between cisgender couples fall under this purview.

160  Tushar Singh et al. And, thus the community’s designation and dignity remain in question, and it seems that they are far from being accepted. The NALSA Judgment

The National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) judgment finds its way to any discourse about the human rights of LGBTQ+ individuals in the country. The NALSA v. Union of India in 2014 turned out to be a breakthrough event. The primary petitioner NALSA was established in India to provide free legal assistance to disadvantaged groups. The judgment entails that transgender people should be granted all the fundamental rights otherwise exercised by only cisgender males and females in India. Moreover, the verdict ensured that “they” would not be discriminated against for accessing their civil and criminal statutes, such as marriage, adoption, and divorce. Additionally, this judgment emphasizes the principle of self-declaration for determining the gender identity of the individual. It also describes the insistence on sex reassignment surgery as immoral and has rendered it illegal. Moreover, The Supreme Court of India has instructed the central and state governments to provide medical care to transgender persons and check that the places where these individuals study and work are equipped with separate toilets and facilities. Also, the government was instructed to run different HIV sero (Blood serum based survey to monitor the prevalence of HIV virus in this population) survey measures for this group. By providing socioeconomic rights to the community, the bench considered this community under the “socially and educationally backward class” and has proposed various social welfare schemes for them (Gulati & Anand, 2021; NALSA v. Union of India, 2014). Moreover, the decision also provisioned reserving seats for them in educational institutions and jobs. Finally, in the most admirable portion of the judgment the court directed both the central and the state governments to seek measures for increasing awareness about transgender persons in the society. This was a welcome step as it intended to ensure the inclusion of transgender persons in mainstream society and enable them to restore their lost respect and esteem. Adding to this, the judiciary system asked the government to take necessary measures to end discrimination, to stop prejudice and stereotypes, and to curb the stigma associated with being the third gender. (NALSA v. Union of ­India, 2014). Various Issues in Indian Schools

The Constitution for the independent India became effective on January 26, 1950. Article 45 of the Constitution stated that ten years after the commencement of the Constitution, the state shall attempt to provide free and compulsory education to all. The term “state” here refers to the government and Parliament of India, state government, and all local authorities who are required to put in joint efforts with regard to education. Articles 29 and 30 also

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in India  161 safeguard the rights of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice based on religion and language. Furthermore, Articles 15, 17, and 46 defend the educational rights of individuals from weaker sections of the society (Kochhar, 1995). In the year 1950–1951, public expenditure on education was only 0.6%, and private expenditure was 0.8% of the gross domestic product (GDP). The annual public expenditure on education increased to 4.2%, and private expenditure increased to 2.6% in 2019–2020. However, the total expenditure of 6.8% of the GDP on education is still inadequate considering the country’s vast population. In addition to the inadequate educational expenditure, Indian schools often struggle to maintain an adequate student-teacher ratio. According to the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act of 2009, pupil-teacher ratio (PTR) should be 30:1. Datta and Kingdon (2021) reported a decrease in PTR from 31.2 in 2010 to 22.8 in 2017. Also, National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 aims to reduce PTR to below 30. They also reported the issue of surplus teachers in certain schools. Forty percent of small schools in Bihar, Assam, Jammu, Kashmir, Uttar Pradesh, and Himachal Pradesh had surplus teachers. However, Datta and Kingdon (2021) also pointed toward the possibility of inflated enrollment figures and higher PTR in some schools. This also brings us to the issue of the lack of trained schoolteachers. According to Rao and Reddy (1992, pp. 80–84), the unavailability of an objective measure for recruitment often leads to the selection of teachers who are undertrained or not motivated for such an important profession. Desai (2011) holds the inadequacy of teacher training programs responsible for the inadequate quality training of the teachers. Among the Indian population, 2.21% of them are persons with disabilities. However, many teachers are not trained to deal with differently abled students (Das, Kuyini & Desai, 2013; Singal, 2005). One of the major issues in Indian schools is gender parity in education. Though it is clear that the gender differential in education is declining, it is still high. According to the data provided by the Niti Ayog (apex policymaking think tank of the Government of India), the gender differential in education has improved from 21.59% in 2001 to 16.68% in 2011. The gender differential in education is even worse for minority women in India. In addition to women, adverse experiences of sexual and gender minorities in schools also contribute to various existing Indian school issues. LGBTQ+ individuals in schools are also often stigmatized, bullied, and even harassed, forcing them to drop out (Arvind et al., 2021; Prasad, 2016; Jain, 2013; Sridevi and Veena, 2011). The Yogyakarta principle number 16 entails the education for LGBTQ+s throughout the world to end discrimination against them and check on their expulsion from the educational institution. In India, this principle is addressed by the Ministry of Education in the form of NEP. The Ministry of Education, formerly known as the Ministry of Human Resource Development deals with India’s literacy in primary, secondary, and higher secondary education systems. It keeps the ball of education rolling in the country by careful

162  Tushar Singh et al. assessments of the system’s quality done annually. Laying the foundation of education, the Ministry has different boards for accrediting examinations and disseminating pedagogy for students. The Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) branches out to almost every state of the country to ensure all students are provided with a uniform curriculum nationwide, but some of the states have regional-level examinations, while some schools opt for the Indian Certificate of Secondary Examination. Moreover, the Government of India has established an autonomous body called the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) to decide and frame the curriculum for classes 1st to 12th (Chandra, 2017). SOGI and School Life in India

According to the Constitution of India, Article 21 (a), a child between the age group of 6–14 years has the right to free education in the country that will be sponsored by the respective state to which the child belongs. It also emphasizes that every citizen of India has the right to life and personal liberty, and the law has given special recognition to children belonging to disadvantaged groups (Jani, 2013). However, it is equally vital to acknowledge that LGBTQ+s in India are deprived of education, consequently reducing their access to economic opportunities. This further contributes to the marginalization and segregation of this community from the mainstream. They face abuse, both verbal and physical, and are often rejected and isolated from society. Additionally, they are often denied rights to their family property. Society ostracizes and discriminates against the LGBT community. Henceforth, they witness difficulty living their lives and spending their livelihoods (Mahapatra, 2016). Nearly 4.9 lakhs transgender persons in India have faced harassment and discrimination in society as per the 2011 Census. Before 2011, the Census of India did not even recognize transgenders, and hence the information about this population for the time before 2011 remains unavailable. For the first time, transgender individuals were recognized as the “third gender” in the 2011 report of the Indian Census (Nagarajan, 2014). As per that report, although 46% of Indian transgender students had received at least some level of education (Census, 2011 India), dropping out could be frequently observed among these minorities as far as school education was concerned. Therefore, often, they barely make it to senior secondary or secondary education. Harassment and bullying of this minority group can be understood as the chief reason for dropping out and lower literacy rates among them (Arvind et al., 2021; Prasad, 2016; Jain, 2013). Sridevi Sivakami and Veena (2011), in their research, found that teachers and classmates forsake these minority students resulting in reluctance among them to attend school. Similarly, Leelavathy (2014) claimed that familial rejection mediates and moderates the education of these children to a considerable extent. However, Chandra (2017) substantiated that there are differences in attitude formation

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in India  163 in trainee teachers toward students belonging to the LGBTQ+ minority based on their undergraduate and postgraduate levels of qualification. It is wellknown that self-esteem and social responsibility fade away when an individual faces extreme social exclusion. There is substantial evidence to suggest that this group has lower literacy rates and higher rates of school dropouts. Consequently, these factors hinder their education and also contribute to various other problems. Therefore, it is important to find a measure to change the scenario. One way to increase their access to economic opportunities is by providing them access to a good education and enhanced skill training (Rajkumar, 2016). Census of India (2011)

The Census of India (2011) indicates that the literacy rate among transgender persons in India is 57.06%. The total population of transgender persons amounts to 487,883 without any mention of other gender and sexual minorities. If the 2011 Census is reflected upon, there were 54,854 transgender people below the age of 6. Ideally, these children should be pursuing school education presently. However, the recent data published by the CBSE in 2020 shook everyone, as it offers insight into the count of the educational level of transgender people. Approximately 18 lakhs and 88,000 students enrolled in class 10th standard (high school) and around 12 lakhs and 6,000 in 12th standard (intermediate). Out of these, only 19 transgender students in the 10th standard and only 6 transgender students in the 12th standard appeared for the board examination. The invisibility of transgender students in mainstream education becomes evident through this data. The transgender bill of 2014 reserves 2% of the total seats reserved in government and government-aided primary, secondary, and higher education institutes. However, when Right to Education (2009) was passed, 25% of seats were allotted to all the underrepresented groups (URGs). Though reservations in India have been ensuring that underprivileged communities get access to public services for the past several years, this road is less traveled by this group (The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act; 2019; Rajdev, 2020). The Tamil Nadu Model of Education

The state government of Tamil Nadu, India, issued orders in 2006 for the facilitation and regulation of transgender education. According to the directive issued, the schools and other educational institutions under the state government were instructed to ensure that transgender students are not denied enrollment in educational institutions at any cost. Also, they directed each educational institution to recruit counselors and collaborate with potential stakeholders to provide guidance and counseling to these students. Moreover, in 2008, the government issued an order that admission forms for educational intuitions should have an additional category besides male and female genders to provide

164  Tushar Singh et al. recognition to the transgender or the “third gender.” This could help reduce the stigma experienced by sexual- and gender-variant students and their families and ensure that they get access to education with dignity. Presently, this government has a provision for full educational scholarships for minorities. Additionally, reservations are assured for transgender students in colleges and universities. Seeking inspiration from such progressive measures of the government, Ms. Srishti Madurai, an activist, launched the very first helpline for the LGBT population of India in 2011. Later in 2013, the same helpline was made available for 24 hours with the motto “to be there for someone and save lives” (Chakrapani & Narrain, 2012; Akila, 2009). National Human Rights Commission Report, 2018

The National Human Rights Commission was set up in 1993 by an act of the Indian Parliament. The commission works to safeguard the human rights of Indian citizens by spreading awareness about those rights among its citizens and by encouraging every stakeholder of law to promote human rights literacy. In 2018, NHRC explored the state of human rights of transgender persons in Delhi and the Uttar Pradesh regions of India. They found concrete evidence suggesting that transgender students in India are stigmatized, labeled, and discriminated against in their educational institutions. It was found that about 30% of transgender students in these regions had never received any formal school education. The research further indicated that only 20% of transgender students could complete their primary school education level in these parts of the country. Data further revealed that approximately 45% of the population in Delhi and 49% of the people in Uttar Pradesh had not completed the high school level of education. It was also substantiated that about 15% of the students in Delhi and 10% of the students in Uttar Pradesh had not received education beyond the 10th–12th levels of schooling. With the help of a field survey, this research uncovered the types of discrimination faced by transgender students at school. For example, 28% of the respondents reported that they had been discriminated against in school. Furthermore, nearly 52% of the transgender students revealed that their batch mates had bullied them, 12% reported that their teachers had harassed them, and 13% said that they had been ridiculed by the nonteaching staff. Data further revealed that 19% of transgender students had been physically abused, and 13% had been sexually abused. Additionally, 62 % of the respondents were found to be abused verbally (National Human Rights Commission Report, 2018). Current Practices in Indian Schools

After the NALSA judgment, transgender persons can now obtain a unique identity certificate issued by the district magistrate. This certificate legally recognizes them as the third gender and ensures that they are treated equally by

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in India  165 the law. But it is evident that Indian schools adhere to heteronormative norms and function as a restrictive group toward gender and sexual minorities (Jain, Rhoten, and Shukla, 2014). Although practices in schools have long been restrictive and discriminating toward sexual and gender minorities, the imposition of the NEP in 2020 by the Ministry of Education offers hope for finding a constructive angle for the discourse about the status of LGBTQ+ individuals in the country. The NEP 2020 offers an inclusive and equitable vision for them. Current Policies and Their Implications

There is sufficient evidence to suggest that LGBTQ+ in India is a disadvantaged group that requires special attention. NEP 2020 is the latest education policy that the country is adhering to. It offers progressive changes to the preexisting education system wherein the policymakers have attempted to cater to the needs of the transgender minority. The act also proposed a “GenderInclusion Fund” to ensure equitable and quality education for transgender students and female students in the country. The fund may be used to provide bicycles for an easier commute to these transgender students, provide cash for studies, and construct appropriate and separate washrooms for them. The fund may also be used to remove any culture-specific barrier to female and transgender students’ education. Additionally, this fund may be used for community-based intervention for the welfare of these students. The education policy recommends that educational institutions recruit professional academic and career counselors to ensure the overall well-being of each student. Concisely, this policy aims to eliminate any discrepancies in educating Indian students. As students drop out of school because of their financial conditions, the policy also caters to the criteria of vocational training for students belonging to disadvantaged socioeconomic groups (Balabantaray & Singh, 2020). Challenges in the Current Policy

Like any other governmental policy, the NEP also does not remain untouched by certain limitations. The policy does not restrict itself to binary definitions of gender (Monro, 2007). However, it fails to offer a thorough understanding of the three different but related concepts of sex, gender, and sexuality. The policy only caters the transgender persons and ignores the intersex and other sexual variants from the entire spectrum of LGBTQ+. The policy doesn’t consider the whole LGBTQ+ community despite the fact that the term URGs may include consideration under the same umbrella regardless of their reason for exclusion from the society. Furthermore, the policy emphasizes the need for gender sensitization of teachers and students under the section of equitable and inclusive education. However, there is no mention of the same under the section on “training of teachers.” Moreover, it does not specify how the goal of gender sensitization

166  Tushar Singh et al. will be achieved, as it does not lay down the measures that can be taken. The LGBTQ+ groups face extreme hardships to obtain an education. Often, they come from uneducated or poorly educated families who tend to be incapable of helping LGBTQ+ students in the completion of their homework. Despite the policy’s limitations, these individuals can now hope for a sound future, as the policy recognizes them as belonging to “socially and economically weaker sections” and offers them educational scholarships, even reserving some seats for them in education and public employment. Moreover, the policy suggests that teachers belonging to these minority groups should also be recruited to serve as role models for these minority students. However, the policy fails to elaborate on the ways by which it aims to achieve this goal. It does not narrate the recruitment process to appoint teachers from this community and ensure proper representation of minority groups. Additionally, the policy does not address the threat posed to these students in the form of peer pressure, bullying, and their desperate struggle to hold on to their unique identities in the student community. Furthermore, the policy does not address the issue of sexual violence against these students. It also does not provide any provision for launching a helpline number where these individuals can file complaints and seek redress while ensuring confidentiality. Such measures could have proven beneficial in reducing the dropout rate of such students. However, the policy only talks about providing a safe environment to LGBTQ+ individuals at school. It does not explain how the school authorities can create a safe environment for such students. In addition to this, the curriculum books do not address the issue of gender sensitization and gender and sexual variants. The policy emphasizes the need to impart Indian values to the students but overlooks the history and struggle of this population. It is also crucial to understand the experiences of LGBTQ+ students from the perspective of intersectionality to understand the subjective influences of factors such as age, gender, and social class on their experiences. Although the issue of the safety of LGBTQ+ individuals in schools has not been sufficiently addressed by the NEP (2020), the Transgender Person (Protection of Rights) Act of 2019 entails punishment imprisonment ranging from 6 months to 2 years for abusing transgender persons. However, the act comes with limitations of its own, as it offers a diluted punishment for the offenders of LGBTQ+ individuals and disregards some of their fundamental rights and bodily autonomy. Some activists even consider it to be a step taken backward from the NALSA judgment of 2014. Lastly, it also does not address the issue of discrimination. A Way Forward

The acknowledgment of the needs and issues of LGBTQ+ individuals is the need of the hour to ensure their acceptance in mainstream Indian society. They are often bullied, ignored, and abused by heteronormative individuals. We must understand that it is crucial to safeguard the fundamental human rights

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in India  167 of these sexual and gender identities. The decision to decriminalize same-sex relations is worth appreciation. However, the continued label of “unnatural” perpetuates stigma against them and harms their self-esteem. Moreover, this ignored portion of society should be checked for child abuse, ostracization, and victimization. Presently, the faculty and administrative staff at school are not gender sensitized and are unaware of issues unique to this population. Hence, gender sensitization programs can help in the way forward. It is recommended that each school conduct orientation programs to impart knowledge about the spectrum of gender and sexuality. They must be educated about the life and culture, psychosocial domains, and emotional conditions of LGBTQ+ individuals. Cisgender students and staff learn to respect diversity in this regard. Overall, supervision and monitoring of the nature of the LGBTQ+ students’ relationship with non-LGBTQ+ students are also important to ensure that they are not being bullied or discriminated against. Training of teachers must ensure that there is no discrepancy in the attitudes and beliefs of the teachers toward LGBTQ+ and non-LGBTQ+ students. Additionally, the curriculum should also be updated to account for the struggle and history of LGBTQ+ students and the social and legal changes regarding the sexual and gender variants. Likewise, in the guru-chela clan, there should be provision for education along with facilities for vocational and skill training of such students, which can foster them in seeking employment and assist their livelihoods. Education is recognized as a fundamental right of every Indian citizen. Hence, the government and the community, in collaboration with each other, must take measures to safeguard their rights. References Agoramoorthy, G., & Hsu, M. J. (2015). Living on the societal edge: India’s transgender realities. Journal of Religion and Health, 54(4), 1451–1459. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10943-014-9987-z Akila, R. (2009). Mapping educational policy structures and processes in Tamil Nadu. Education Policy Research Series, 1(1). http://retro.prajnya.in/eprsI1.pdf Arvind, A., Pandya, A., Amin, L., Aggarwal, M., Agrawal, D., Tiwari, K., & Agarwal, P. (2021). Social strain, distress, and gender dysphoria among transgender women and Hijra in Vadodara, India. International Journal of Transgender Health, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/26895269.2020.1845273 Balabantaray, S. R., & Singh, A. (2020) Review of (revisiting) the transgender education in India: An analysis of the National Educational Policy 2020. Journal of Public Affairs, e2504. https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.2504 Bhattacharya, S., & Ghosh, D. (2020). Studying physical and mental health status among hijra, kothi and transgender community in Kolkata, India. Social Science & Medicine, 265, Article 113412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113412 Census 2011 India. Ministry of Home Affairs. “Census, Government of India.” (2011). http://census2011.co.in/transgender.php Chakrapani, V., & Narrain, A. (2012). Legal recognition of gender identity of transgender people in India: Current situation and potential options. Policy Brief. https://

168  Tushar Singh et al. www.undp.org/content/dam/india/docs/HIV_and_development/legal-recognitionof-gender-identity-of-transgender-people-in-in.pdf Chakrapani, V., Newman, P. A., & Noronha, E. (2018). Hijras/transwomen and sex work in India. Transgender Sex Work and Society, 214–235. https://doi. org/10.1037/0000159-008 Chandra, S. (2017). Transgender Children’s education and their reengagement in society. International Journal of Educational Research Studies, 2(13), 875–890. http:// www.srjis.com/pages/pdfFiles/15014920732.%20SATISH%20CHANDRA.pdf Chase, A. T. (2016). Human rights contestations: sexual orientation and gender identity. The International Journal of Human Rights, 20(6), 703–723. https://doi.org/10. 1080/13642987.2016.1147432 Das, A. K., Kuyini, A. B., & Desai, I. P. (2013). Inclusive education in India: Are the teachers prepared? International Journal of Special Education, 28(1), 27–36. https:// files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1013694.pdf Datta, S., & Kingdon, G. G. (2021) Teacher shortage in India: Myth or reality? The fiscal cost of surplus teachers, fake enrolment and absences. Discussion Paper Series. IZA institute of Labour Economics. https://www.iza.org/publications/dp/14251/teachershortage-in-india-myth-or-reality-the-fiscal-cost-of-surplus-teachers-fake-enrolmentand-absences Desai, V. M. (2011). Mass media and massive failures: Determining organizational efforts to defend field legitimacy following crises. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2), 263–278. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.60263082 Dunlap, A. (2014). Supporting youth in the coming-out process: Theory-based programming. Smith College Studies in Social Work, 84(1), 107–129. https://doi.org/10. 1080/00377317.2014.861173 Dutta, A. (2019). Dissenting differently: Solidarities and tensions between student organizing and trans-Kothi-Hijra activism in Eastern India. South Asia Multidisciplinary Academic Journal, (20). https://doi.org/10.4000/samaj.5210 Ferfolja, T., & Hopkins, L. (2013). The complexities of workplace experience for lesbian and gay teachers. Critical Studies in Education, 54(3), 311–324. https://doi.org/10. 1080/17508487.2013.794743 Graves, K. (2015). LGBTQ education research in historical context. In G. L. Wimberly (Ed.). LGBTQ issues in education: Advancing a research agenda. American Educational Research Association. https://doi.org/10.3102/978-0-935302-36-3_2 Gulati, K., & Anand, T. (2021). Inheritance rights of transgender persons in India (No. 21/350). https://www.nipfp.org.in/media/medialibrary/2021/08/WP_350_2021.pdf Hynes, P., Lamb, M., Short, D., & Waites, M. (2014). Sociology and human rights: Confrontations, evasions, and new engagements. In Sociology and human rights: New engagements (pp. 9–30). Routledge. Hynes, P., Lamb, M., Short, D., & Waites, M. (Eds.). (2016). New directions in the sociology of human rights. Routledge. Jain, D. (2017a). Impact of the Naz Foundation judgment on the gay, bisexual and transgender people in Delhi: An empirical investigation. https://jgu.edu.in/cjls/centre-reports/ impact-of-the-naz-foundation-judgment-on-the-gay-bisexual-and-transgenderpeople-in-delhi-an-empirical-investigation/ Jain, D. (2017b). Shifting subjects of state legibility: Gender minorities and the law in India. Berkeley Journal of Gender, Law and Justice, 32(1). https://doi.org/10.15779/ Z388K74W73

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in India  169 Jain, D., & DasGupta, D. (2021). Law, gender identity, and the uses of human rights: The paradox of recognition in South Asia. Journal of Human Rights, 1–21. https:// doi.org/10.1080/14754835.2020.1845129 Jain, D., Rhoten, K., & Shukla, S. (2014, December). Legally invisible. Seminar. Jain, Dipika (2013). Impact of the decriminalization of homosexuality in Delhi: An empirical study. Arkansas Journal of Social Change and Public Service. https://ualr. edu/socialchange/2013/01/13/impact-of-the-decriminalization-of-homosexuality-indelhi-an-empirical-study/ Jani, N. (2013). Article 21 of Constitution of India and right to livelihood. Voice of Research, 2(2), 61–66. http://www.voiceofresearch.org/doc/Sep-2013/Sep-2013_14.pdf Kochhar, S. K. (1995). Pivotal issues in education in India. Sterling Publishers. Kohli, S. (2017). Gender inequality in India. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Studies. 3(4), 178–185. https://oaji.net/articles/2017/1115-1486537290.pdf Konduru, D., & Hangsing, C. (2018). Socio–cultural exclusion and inclusion of trans-genders in India. International Journal of Social Sciences and Management, 5(1), 10–17. https://doi.org/10.3126/ijssm.v5i1.18147 Leelavathy K. (2014). Socio-economic problems of transgender in workplace. International Journal of Scientific Research, 3(4). Retrieved April 19, 2020, from https:// www.worldwidejournals.com/international-journal-of-scientific-research-(IJSR)/ fileview.php?val=April_2014_1397136311_d8bdf_211.pdf Lennox, C., & Waites, M. (2013). Human rights, sexual orientation and gender identity in the commonwealth. University of London Press. MacKinnon, C. A. (2006). Sex equality under the Constitution of India: Problems, prospects, and “personal laws.” International Journal of Constitutional Law, 4(2), 181–202. https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/mol001 Mahapatra, T. (2016). A cross sectional study to explore the HIV/AIDS related knowledge, attitude and practice and their association with HIV prevalence among men having sex with men population of Kolkata, West Bengal, India [Doctoral dissertation]. UCLA. Retrieved March 28, 2023, from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1320771t Mariam Thomas, T. (2013). The clan culture of Hijras: An exploration into the gender identity and status of Hijras inside and outside Gharanas (Centre for Research –Projects).Christ University. Massey, J. (2003). Minorities and religious freedom in a democracy. Manohar Publishers & Distributors in association with Centre for Dalit/Subaltern Studies Monro, S. (2007). Transmuting gender binaries: The theoretical challenge. Socio-logical Research Online, 12, 90–104. https://doi.org/10.5153/sro.1514 Nagarajan, R. (2014). First count of third gender in census: 4.9 lakh. Retrieved December 28, 2016, from http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Firstcountofthirdgenderincensus4.9lakh/articleshow/35741613.cms. NALSA v. Union of India. (2014). Supreme court judgment on Transgender rights. http://orinam.net/content/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/nalsa_summary_danish.pdf National Education Policy (NEP). (2020). Ministry of Education. Retrieved April, 22, 2021, from https://www.education.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/NEP_Final_ English_0.pdf National Human Rights Commission Report, 2018 National Human Rights Commission. (2018). Study on human rights of transgender as a third gender. https://nhrc.nic. in/sites/default/files/Study_HR_transgender_03082018.pdf Pattanaik, D. (2014). Shikhandi and other tales they don’t tell you. Zubaan and Penguin Books India.

170  Tushar Singh et al. Prasad, G. S. (2016). Unmet needs assessment of geriatric and pre geriatric lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex (LGBTI) individuals in urban India. Indian Journal of Gerontology, 30(1), 122–137. http://gerontologyindia.com/pdf/Vol-30-1.pdf#page=128 Rajdev, B. (2020, July 24). For transgender persons, discrimination begins in schools. The Wire. https://thewire.in/lgbtqia/cbse-results-transgender-students-educationstigma-discrimination. Rajkumar. (2016). Education of transgenders in India: Status and challenges. International Journal of Research in Economics and Social Sciences, 6(11): 15–24. Ranchhodas, R., & Thakore, D.K. (1967). The Indian penal code, 24th ed. The Bombay Law Reporter {Private} Ltd. Rao, V. K., & R.S. Reddy. (1992). Teacher and teaching techniques. Common Wealth Publishers. Rustagi, P. (2005). Understanding gender inequalities in wages and incomes in India. The Indian Journal of Labour Economics, 48(2), 319–334. https://www.wiego.org/ sites/default/files/migrated/publications/files/Rustagi_Gender.Inequality.Wages_. Income.India_.pdf Saikia, N., Moradhvaj, & Bora, J. K. (2016). Gender difference in health care expenditure: evidence from India human development survey. PLoS One. https://doi. org/10.1371/journal.pone.0158332 Sharma, B. K. (2021). Introduction to the constitution of India. PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd. Sheikh, D. (2013). The road to decriminalization: Litigating India’s anti-sodomy law. Yale Human Rights and Development Law Journal, 16, 104. https://law.unimelb.edu. au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/3634513/Danish-The-Road-to-Decriminalization.pdf Singal, N. (2005). Mapping the field of inclusive education: A review of the Indian literature. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 9(4), 331–350. https://doi. org/10.1080/13603110500138277 Singh, A. K., & Rabindranath, M. (2020). Gender divide in Education in India: A critical study based on functionalist theory of education. Journal of Critical Reviews. 7(2), 574–578. http://idl.igntu.ac.in/jspui/handle/123456789/2008 Sridevi Sivakami, P. L., & Veena, K. V. (2011). Social exclusion have a negative impact on the health of the Transgender. Indian Streams Research Journal, 1(1), 1–4. Stief, M. (2017). The sexual orientation and gender presentation of hijra, kothi, and panthi in Mumbai, India. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46(1), 73–85. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10508-016-0886-0 The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act. (2019). Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment. Retrieved March 27, 2020, from http://socialjustice.nic.in/writere addata/UploadFile/TG%20bill%20gazette.pdf Waites, M. (2014). Human rights, sexual orientation and the generation of childhoods: Analysing the partial decriminalisation of ‘unnatural offences’ in India. In Matthew Waites (ed.). Sociology and Human Rights: New Engagements (pp. 169–191). Routledge. Wandrekar, J. R., & Nigudkar, A. S. (2020). What do we know about LGBTQIA+ mental health in India? A review of research from 2009 to 2019. Journal of Psychosexual Health, 2(1), 26–36. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F2631831820918129

10 Intersectionality and Multiple Minority Experiences Perspectives from the United States Stephen Russell and Amy L. McCurdy

Introduction For several decades, research in the United States has documented victimization and bullying at school for sexual and gender minority (SGM) students – or students who may identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or questioning (LGBTQ+). Because of this attention to victimization and bullying, safety at school has been a central focus of sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) issues in schooling. School safety refers to a climate or environment at schools where students are comfortable and affirmed in selfexpression and where they are free from distractions to focus on their academic and social adjustment. Discriminatory, homophobic bullying has received significant research attention. Yet discriminatory bullying is complex and may have its origins in multiple sources of oppression that youth may face. For instance, LGBTQ+ students may experience social regulation, discrimination, or bullying due to their sexual orientation or their gender identity – but they may also experience sexual harassment; harassment based on their race/ethnic, cultural, or religious background; or harassment based on their social class background or dis/advantages. However, available research tends to focus on the consequences of single forms of victimization, independent of other forms that occur simultaneously. In the United States, representations of the experiences of Asian American students have largely overlooked heterogeneity among Asian American youth and have centered on the “model minority” stereotype, which portrays Asian Americans as an exceptional, high-achieving group among other US minority groups (Ocampo & Soodjinda, 2016). A broader perspective of Asian American student experiences would include the multiple, overlapping identities and oppressions they face. In this chapter, we consider multiple forms of minority experiences in schooling, including the intersection of SOGI with other forms of discrimination and bullying. We draw from theories of minority stress and intersectionality to consider the ways that Asian American ethnic identity, in intersection with sexual orientation or gender identity, shapes multiple aspects of a person’s identity and experiences with peers and at school. First, we describe relevant theoretical frameworks for investigating the experiences of Asian American DOI: 10.4324/9781003430414-10

172  Stephen Russell and Amy L. McCurdy SGM youth – namely, minority stress theory and intersectionality. Next, we turn to descriptions of historical and geographic group differences between Asian-origin individuals to situate the unique, intersectional oppression experienced by Asian American youth in the United States. We illustrate this context of intersectional oppression for Asian American youth with an empirical example describing bias-based bullying experiences on multiple social identities in a large, school-based sample of Asian American youth in California. We conclude with recommendations for school personnel, along with a discussion of productive avenues for future research on multiple minority experiences in schooling. Discrimination, Minority Stress, and Intersectionality A distinctive characteristic of the history of the United States has been its multicultural nature: it carries a dominant history of immigration. This history carries an ideology of inclusion in that the North American continent was settled by waves of immigrants at different times and from different (although largely Western or European) nations. At the same time, that immigrant history began with the subjugation of the indigenous populations of Native American nations and was consistently characterized by hierarchies among religious and cultural groups, with White, Christian, Western European males consistently in dominant positions. It is from this cultural history that multiple minority discrimination must be understood in the US context and that theoretical conceptualizations of minority stress and intersectionality emerged as influential for understanding contemporary intergroup relations. “Minority stress theory” is a framework for understanding the mental health disparities propagated through stigmatization and discrimination in socially hostile environments experienced by LGBTQ+ individuals (Meyer & Frost, 2013). The theory is relevant for understanding the experience of stigma across minority groups – not only sexual minorities but also for understanding racial and ethnic minority stigma experiences. During adolescence, a primary form of minority stress experienced by racial/ethnic minority and sexual minority students is peer victimization at school (Collier et al., 2013; Peguero & Williams, 2013). Bias-based bullying is a type of discriminatory victimization that is perpetrated on the basis of actual or perceived social identity – forms that are relevant here include bullying based on actual or perceived race or ethnicity, sex or gender, and sexual orientation. Guided by minority stress theory, studies have linked bias-based bullying to disparities in mental health and personal achievement (Wei et al., 2010), showing that it is bullying based on discrimination or bias, rather than general bullying, that leads to compromised well-being for youth (Russell et al., 2012). Intersectionality theory is a perspective that emerged from the late 20th-century Black feminist movements in the United States (Bow et al., 2017). The theory acknowledges that people occupy multiple social positions or identities, including, for example, race or ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity,

Intersectionality and Multiple Minority Experiences  173 social class, or religion. These identities intersect for the individual, and they reflect multiple, inseparable forms of structural oppression (or privilege), including racism, heterosexism, sexism, classism, or religious prejudice. These intersecting identities – at the intersection of forms of oppression – shape the experiences of people from multiple marginalized groups such that intersecting systems of privilege or oppression manifest for the individual as distinctive vulnerable (or advantaged) statuses with respect to health and well-being (Bowleg, 2012). Thus, identities themselves are not to be understood as measures of categories of people but rather are proxies for society-level privilege or oppression. Intersectionality provides scholars with a theoretical and methodological lens for analyzing and understanding the complexities of multiple intersecting social identities (Nash, 2008), and a growing number of researchers have advocated for the integration of intersectionality in developmental sciences and education research (Bowleg, 2012; Ghavami et al., 2016; Santos & Toomey, 2018). In the United States, the stigma attached to different marginalized groups has different historical roots and thus manifests in different interpersonal discrimination and personal stressors. Together, minority stress and intersectionality frameworks help explain how the synthesis of oppressions jointly affects Asian American adolescents’ school experiences. The case of Asian American youth is particularly relevant to understand from an intersectional perspective given the cultural intersections of the model minority stereotype with long-standing prejudice and a history of discrimination in the United States. Historical Contexts and Asian American Ethnic Diversity Asian Americans are a large and diverse group in the United States, with regions of Asian origins including East Asia (China, Korea, Japan, and Mongolia), South Asia (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Nepal), and Southeast Asia (Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Philippines, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam). The largest Asian American ethnic groups are Chinese Americans and Indian Americans, followed by Filipino Americans, but there are more than 30 other US ethnic subgroups (Shih & Chang, 2021) with distinctive cultural origins and US immigration histories. Asian American cultural values have often been characterized monolithically as collectivistic in nature; however, cultural histories, values, and beliefs vary among Asian American ethnic groups. Chinese Americans were among the early Asian-origin immigrants to the United States in the mid-19th century and remain the largest national origin group among Asian Americans. Chinese American culture has been traditionally influenced by Confucianism, which emphasizes respect for authority, filial piety, and the value of education (Chao & Tseng, 2002). Chinese cultural values, as well as those from other East Asian cultures, have been characterized by emotional self-control, adherence to conformity, and norms of collectivism. For example, family expectations for Chinese American children are high, and

174  Stephen Russell and Amy L. McCurdy children are socialized to maintain harmony with others (Fuligni et al., 2002). These practices create the context for “saving face,” a value or behavior related to shame that reinforces conformity to family and societal expectations for propriety and harmony (Huang, 1994). Indian Americans are the second largest Asian-origin group in the United States, with a relatively recent immigration history, beginning in the 1960s with the passage of the Immigration and Naturalization Act (Kurien, 2003). South Asians have a distinct history of British colonization, and thus English-language institutional systems, including education (Ramisetty-Mikler, 1993). This history offered relative privilege to South Asian–origin immigrants to the United States compared to earlier groups since many immigrated largely to pursue higher education and professional degrees, or professional careers. Finally, the third largest Asian-origin subgroup in the United States is Filipino Americans. The Philippines had a long history of Catholicism under Spanish colonization, followed by US occupation or colonization (at least until 1946, with lasting political and cultural influences). This history of colonization was shared with other Southeast Asian–origin American groups. Thus, while some aspects of Southeast Asian–origin cultures share similarities with East Asian groups, distinct origin histories have led to cultural group differences among these groups in the United States. Similar to relationships in East Asian families, Filipino American kin relationships are characterized as interdependent, with family members depending on each other for support. Strong social ties are created through reciprocal obligations (Pe-Pua & Protacio-Marcelino, 2000), and families instill values of harmony within the social group, including the values of getting along with others in order to have smooth, harmonious relations (Pe-Pua & Protacio-Marcelino, 2000). While these aspects share some cultural similarities with East Asian groups, some Southeast Asian–origin groups are more likely to hold egalitarian, rather than patriarchal, gender role values (Agbayani-Siewert, 1994). Whereas East Asian cultures have largely been influenced by Confucian and Buddhist philosophies, Filipino American culture is influenced by Catholicism under Spanish colonization. Thus, unlike Confucian-based East Asian cultures, Filipino culture does not emphasize patriarchal authority and age stratification. Yet sex roles do, however, continue to be strongly influenced by Spanish cultural values: males are socialized to be more aggressive, and the Spanish influence has led to conceptions of “machismo” behaviors (Guthrie & Jacobs, 1976). Finally, histories of colonization and immigration have produced gendered stereotypes that intersect with Asian American identity. Asian American men, many of whom were recruited as laborers for West Coast gold mines and railroad construction in the late 19th century, were stereotyped as effeminate, which rendered discrimination and exploitation invisible (Sun et al., 2015). US immigration policies barred citizenship to Asian-origin men through the 19th and mid-20th centuries, effectively restricting their legal and economic participation in ways that disenfranchised them into feminized industries (laundry; food service; Park, 2012). Asian American women, on the other hand, have been stereotyped as hypersexualized and objectified, for example, in depictions

Intersectionality and Multiple Minority Experiences  175 of media from periods of US military involvement in Asia in the mid-20th century (Sun et al., 2015). The Model Minority Myth The “model minority” myth is a pervasive stereotype in the United States that shapes perceptions of Asian Americans as having high achievement and lowrisk behaviors compared to other racial/ethnic groups (Suzuki, 2002). It emerged in the 1960s to describe the achievement of Japanese Americans who were able to overcome the racism and economic displacement that they experienced during World War II (Shih & Chang, 2021). The model minority myth is erroneously used to provide evidence of meritocracy within American systems (i.e., the “American Dream”) while simultaneously absolving such systems of creating and perpetuating inequality through systemic racism (Ngo & Lee, 2007). Since its inception, the stereotype reinforces the idea that other minoritized ethnic groups in the US (African Americans or Blacks; Latinx people) are unworthy and that Asian Americans are “problem free.” For youth, this stereotype seeps into schools such that youth of Asian heritage are assumed to be “problem free,” with high academic achievement, and low health and risk behavior. These assumptions of homogeneity among Asian American youth conceals important variation and contribute to misleading conclusions. The “model minority” label ignores the diversity within the Asian American population (Wong & Halgin, 2006). For example, few studies of academic achievement in schools differentiate among Asian American ethnic subgroups (Tran & Birman, 2010). Studies that consider heterogeneity among Asian American ethnic subgroups have found that some groups, such as Southeast Asian Americans, have less academic success in comparison to South and East Asian American students, and differences are also present for health behaviors, such as substance use (J. P. Lee et al., 2013; Ngo & Lee, 2007; Ryabov, 2015; Yang, 2004). Thus, the “model minority” stereotype disregards the reality in which some Asian Americans experience poor academic adjustment and engage in problematic health behaviors (Choi & Lahey, 2006). The model minority myth emphasizes success while minimizing distress, and this trivializes experiences of anti-Asian discrimination, academic stress, and problem behaviors that Asian American youth face. Further, the model minority myth holds Asian American youth to higher academic standards than their peers, and there is evidence of significant academic and acculturation stress for Asian American youth (Shih & Chang, 2021; Suinn, 2010) The tension between the myth and sources of acute distress and disadvantage may be toxic for some Asian American youth. For example, Southeast Asian American adolescents and their families, many of whom were refugees with low English proficiency, may experience miscommunication and lack of information within US school systems, leading to lower school connectedness, and explaining lower academic success in comparison to South and East Asian– origin youth (Yang, 2004).

176  Stephen Russell and Amy L. McCurdy Finally, an intersecting aspect of the model minority myth is that Asian Americans have been viewed as a “sexual model minority,” meaning that Asian American adolescents’ sexual behaviors align with normative American values (e.g., postponing sexual behavior until adulthood), which are threatened by nonheterosexuality (Chang, 2016). Cultural values of family responsibility and social harmony are posited as the cultural basis for sexual conservatism in Asian cultures (Cochran et al., 1991). Consistent with these views is the stereotype that “traditional” Asian cultural values related to family and gender roles are homophobic (Endo, 2021). The feminization of Asian American men leads to stereotypes that they are nonsexual, while the hypersexualized Asian American woman stereotype confirms norms of submissiveness (Sun et al., 2015). The result of a sexual version of the model minority myth is that Asian Americans are overlooked with respect to sexual health and risk behavior, and sexual diversity is made invisible (Cochran et al., 1991). Asian American Intersectional Minority Stress Stigma marks some groups as different from what is “normal” (Goffman, 2009) and can include physical stigma (such as having a physical difference or disability), stigma of group identity such as race or ethnicity, and stigma of character traits, or beliefs, behaviors or conditions they may possess, including non-normative expressions of sexuality or gender. Persons in the dominant group perceive the stigmatized individual as different, and those perceptions may be based on observed behaviors or conditions, or may be inferred. The diverse national origin histories of Asian American subgroups point to distinctions in cultural backgrounds and migration experiences that offer opportunities to examine differences in stigma or discrimination experiences. Indeed, the small extant research confirms that Asian Americans do differ with respect to racial discrimination. Studies that examine discriminatory experiences among specific Asian American ethnic groups, such as the National Latino and Asian American Study (2002–2003), have found that Filipino Americans reported the most racial discrimination and everyday discrimination experiences (Gee et al., 2007), whereas Chinese and Vietnamese Americans reported more language discrimination (Li, 2014). These findings are consistent with recent findings for youth discrimination experiences, with Filipino American youth reporting higher rates of racial discrimination compared to Korean American youth (Park et al., 2021). Despite fundamental limitations in US samples, a pattern emerges in which racial discrimination is reported to be highest among Southeast Asian Americans (or in many studies Filipinos since they are one of the largest US Asian–origin ethnic groups). Racial discrimination against Asian Americans tends to be trivialized due to the myth of their uniform educational and socioeconomic success (Ocampo & Soodjinda, 2016). However, high rates of racist physical and emotional harassment among Asian Americans inflicted by peers (e.g., about their accent, physical appearance) prove that discrimination against Asian Americans is not

Intersectionality and Multiple Minority Experiences  177 to be overlooked (Qin et al., 2008; Rosenbloom & Way, 2004). Subtler forms of racism or, microaggressions, experienced by racial and ethnic minorities may be perceived as innocuous by perpetrators yet have powerful health-related ramifications when these acts are recurrent throughout everyday life (Sue et al., 2009). SGM Asian Americans’ dual minority status is accompanied by multifaceted social stress: on one hand, they face heterosexism in both the larger US society and their respective racial/ethnic communities; as young Asian-origin men and women, they face sexism and misogyny associated with racialized and gendered stereotypes; they also experience racism and stress from the “model minority” stereotype within the larger society and within queer communities (Balsam et al., 2011). Results from previous studies would suggest that Southeast Asian American and SGM adolescents would likely experience more identity-based discrimination compared to their South and/or East Asian American and non-SGM peers, which could explain differences in outcomes (e.g., academic achievement disparities, substance use behaviors) documented by previous research. Identity-based victimization in adolescence is linked to lower well-being and lower grade point averages, especially for LGBTQ youth and youth of color, and studies show that discrimination accounts for at least part of the link between identity and adverse school and mental health outcomes (Price et al., 2019). Bias-based bullying has an insidious effect on youth beyond that of non-bias-based (i.e., not identity-based) bullying (Russell et al., 2012). Informed by an intersectionality framework, bias-based bullying that targets overlapping or multiple forms of oppression may result in an amplification effect on adverse outcomes such that youth who experience bias-based bullying on multiple social identities are at higher risk of these bullying experiences leading to negative outcomes (Mulvey et al., 2018). Understanding the prevalence of multiple forms of bias-based bullying that Asian American youth face in a culturally responsive way that does not simply aggregate all Asian-origin youth together is, therefore, an important tool for understanding intersectional minority stress in their lives and supporting Asian American SGM youth success. School Safety and Belonging Bias-based bullying and peer victimization have clear implications for student perceptions of school safety, as studies demonstrate that exposure to multiple forms of bias-based bullying (compared to non-bias-based bullying and single forms of bias-based bullying) increases students’ fear and school avoidance (Mulvey et al., 2018). School safety is a component of a larger construct of school climate, which is typically conceptualized as the norms, relationships, teaching practices, and structures that impact youth experiences in school (Thapa et al., 2013). Although school climate is a multidimensional concept that typically includes three domains (physical, social, and academic

178  Stephen Russell and Amy L. McCurdy environment), research on Asian American K–12 students focuses almost exclusively on academic achievement, and less on other aspects of their experiences at school and as students that affect development (Endo, 2021). For instance, perceptions of racial discrimination and perceived authenticity in self-presentation at school are particularly strong predictors of mental health (i.e., depression, anxiety, isolation at school) for Asian American youth compared to White American youth (Luthar et al., 2021), suggesting that school contexts that enable or facilitate discrimination and inauthenticity are particularly harmful to Asian American students. Stigma or discrimination based on sexual or gender identities (that is, nonheterosexual sexual identities, or non-cisgender gender identities) has been understood as the basis for anti-LGB school victimization or bullying. The stigma that youth experience may be due to character traits such as sexual or gender minority status that may be actual – or perceived. That is, one does not necessarily have to be LGBTQ+ to experience bullying for being LGBTQ+. In fact, recent studies in the United States point out that heterosexual youth not only experience homophobic bullying but that such bullying is associated with negative mental health for heterosexual students (Parent et al., 2020). For LGB-identified youths, research has extensively documented how targeted discrimination contributes to lower academic achievement and elevated prevalence of substance use. Results from the Youth Risk Behavior Survey analyses show that LGB youths are at higher risk for experiences with violent interpersonal behaviors, including bullying, teasing, harassment, and physical assault: 33% of LGB students reported having been bullied on school property, almost twice the rate reported by heterosexual students (Kann, 2018). National surveys on school climate also indicate that LGB youths are more likely to be exposed to discriminatory situations than their heterosexual peers, yet progress in reducing their levels of victimization has been slowing down (Kosciw et al., 2018). Research has shown that victimization partially explains academic achievement disparities experienced by LGB-identified youths (Birkett et al., 2014). The impact of school climate on youth development has been less explored for youth who occupy multiple marginalized social identities. A small number of studies that focus on sexual minority Asian American youths suggest that their substance use is significantly more prevalent than that of heterosexual Asian Americans (Hahm et al., 2008; Lee & Hahm, 2012), an outcome that has been predicted by bias-based bullying (Russell et al., 2012). Indeed, differences in substance use mirror discrepancies in victimization experienced at school: in one Canadian sample, LGB Asian Canadian youth reported greater victimization than heterosexual Asian Canadian youth (Poon et al., 2011). Sexual minority Asian American youth who report more negative school climate also report lower self-esteem and greater emotional distress (Homma & Saewyc, 2007). In a study of 13 LGBQ Asian American students (public high school in the Midwest), students described bullying based on assumed or real gender expression, deviations from stereotypical expectations of Asian American gender roles, and racialized understanding

Intersectionality and Multiple Minority Experiences  179 of sexuality (Endo, 2021). The majority of participants did not report these incidents due to concerns about reprisal. On the other hand, there is also evidence that protective factors, such as positive school climate and greater feelings of safety at school, provide opportunities for sexual minority Asian American youth to thrive. Bias-Based Bullying Experiences of Asian American Youth: An Empirical Example To illustrate these patterns of intersecting identities with bullying at school, we present data from a large school-based sample of adolescents in the US state of California. California has received many Asian immigrants with distinct migration histories and currently has the largest Asian-origin population of any US state, and the largest proportion of Asian Americans (at more than 15%) than any state other than Hawai’i. We use data from the 2015 to 2017 California Healthy Kids Survey, designed to track health risks and resilience among youths enrolled in 7th, 9th, and 11th grades in California. Lack of statistical power often prevents researchers from exploring multiple identities and multiple forms of discrimination quantitatively; however, this problem is mitigated when datasets with larger sample sizes are used. We present descriptive data from participants who had valid information on an Asian American identity, sexual orientation, and bias-based bullying. Participants identified their race based on six options: “American Indian or Alaska Native,” “Asian,” “Black or African American,” “Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander,” “White,” or “Mixed (two or more) races.” They next were asked to identify Asian or Pacific Islander background from the following options: “Asian Indian”; “Cambodian”; “Chinese”; “Filipino”; “Hmong”; “Japanese”; “Korean”; “Laotian”; “Vietnamese”; “Native Hawaiian, Guamanian, Samoan, Tahitian, or other Pacific Islander”; or “Other Asian”; we classified participants who selected Asian as their race into Asian-origin subgroups based on these answers. Those who identified their background as Asian Indian were categorized as “South Asian” (n = 10,900, 16.56%); participants who identified their background as Chinese, Japanese, Korean, or any combination of the three were categorized as “East Asian” (n = 24,273, 36.88%); and participants who identified their background as Cambodian, Filipino, Hmong, Laotian, Vietnamese, or any combination of the five were categorized as “Southeast Asian” (n = 30,643, 46.56%). A single item was used to assess SOGI in the survey: “Which of the following best describes you?” Participants were instructed to “mark all that apply.” Participants who marked the “heterosexual (straight)” option but not the “gay, lesbian, or bisexual” option were coded as heterosexual (n = 61,549; 93.52%); those who marked the “gay, lesbian, or bisexual” option were coded as LGB (n = 4,267; 6.48%). Finally, students were also asked a set of questions about bias-based bullying on school property during the past 12 months. Being bullied was defined as having been “shoved, hit, threatened, called mean names, teased,

180  Stephen Russell and Amy L. McCurdy or had other unpleasant physical or verbal things done to them repeatedly or in a severe way.” Students could report being bullied because of their “race, ethnicity, or national origin,” their “gender (being male or female),” or because they were “gay or lesbian or someone thought [they] were” (for our descriptive purposes, we compare any bullying to no bullying). Table 10.1 shows the patterns of intersecting identities, and bias-based bullying, across three Asian ethnic subgroups. There are several notable patterns. First, bullying based on race/ethnicity varied slightly from 20.71% for East Asians to 23.54% for Southeast Asian American students. However, the pattern is more pronounced for sexual orientation and gender-based bullying compared to the somewhat higher rates of race/ethnic bullying: Southeast Asian American youth consistently report the highest rates of bullying due to sexual orientation (7.76%) and gender (7.58%), compared to the other two Asian-origin groups. Finally, the experience of bullying itself is intersectional: some youth experience multiple forms of bias-based bullying, and LGBTQ youth in all subgroups reported greater racial/ethnic bullying. In fact, more than 1 in 20 (5%) youth across groups report two or three forms of bullying, and this ratio increased to 1 in 4 (25%) for LGBTQ youth. Notably, the pattern of highest risk for bias-based bullying for Southeast Asian American youth is seen further for examination of intersectional bullying: they are at substantially higher risk for being bullied for two or all three forms of bias. These results demonstrate how the intersection of multiple forms of oppression results in exacerbated minority stress for youth in school, which has implications for student achievement, well-being, and subsequent experiences in adulthood. Table 10.1  Demographic Statistics Stratified by Ethnic Subgroups South Asian n Total sample Experienced bias-based bullying Racial/ethnic bullying Sexual orientation bullying Gender bullying Two forms of bullying Three forms of bullying

East Asian

% Total % n LGBTQ

10,900 100%

4.22%

% Total

24,273 100%

Southeast Asian % n LGBTQ 5.35%

% Total % LGBTQ

30,643 100%

8.30%

2,375 21.92% 30.68%

4,977

20.71% 31.20%

7,183

23.54% 28.28%

712

6.58%

30.82%

1,162

4.84%

29.43%

2,366

7.76%

35.37%

515

4.76%

25.27%

1,398

5.82%

20.46%

2,308

7.58%

19.88%

548

5.08%

13.90%

1,155

4.82%

14.89%

1,896

6.24%

15.41%

170

1.57%

13.22%

390

1.63%

11.20%

683

2.25%

10.00%

Intersectionality and Multiple Minority Experiences  181 Conclusion Minority stress and intersectionality are important theoretical frameworks derived from the US context and provide a theoretical lens for understanding multiple minority issues in school, and also have implications for SOGI issues in schooling in Asia. These theories provide an analysis of individual identity, experiences of stress, and how those intersect with systems of oppression, and thus offer a liberatory tool for analyzing, understanding, and addressing the intersectional discrimination that multiple minority youth experience. For school administrators and personnel in the US context, the implications are that Asian American students should not be treated as a homogeneous or “problem-free” population. Such a stereotypical framework for understanding Asian American youth and their lives minimizes the adversity and oppression that these students experience and denies the allocation of supportive resources. It is important for school personnel to take steps to improve school climate, especially for Southeast Asian American students, who seem to experience the most victimization at school. For school administrators and personnel in Asian contexts, these frameworks point out that understanding SOGI issues in schooling will be incomplete without attending to the intersecting social positions that LGBTQ+ youth navigate: their sex and gender identities, or their ethnic or national backgrounds (Oh & Wha Han, 2022). Finally, for researchers and scholars, future work must consider how multiple minority identities intersect in youths’ lives. References Agbayani-Siewert, P. (1994). Filipino American culture and family: Guidelines for practitioners. Families in Society, 75(7), 429–438. Balsam, K. F., Molina, Y., Beadnell, B., Simoni, J., & Walters, K. (2011). Measuring multiple minority stress: The LGBT people of color microaggressions scale. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 17(2), 163–174. https://doi.org/10.1037/ a0023244 Birkett, M., Russell, S. T., & Corliss, H. L. (2014). Sexual-orientation disparities in school: The mediational role of indicators of victimization in achievement and truancy because of feeling unsafe. American Journal of Public Health, 104(6), 1124–1128. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301785 Bow, L., Brah, A., Goeman, M., Harriford, D., Keating, A., Lin, Y.-C. T., Pérez, L., Thompson, B., Peterson, Z., Willoughby-Herard, T., Kolenz, K. A., Benson, K. L., Wu, J. T.-C., & Huhndorf, S. M. (2017). Combahee river collective statement: A fortieth anniversary retrospective. Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies, 38(3), 164–189. https://doi.org/10.5250/fronjwomestud.38.3.0164 Bowleg, L. (2012). The problem with the phrase women and minorities: Intersectionality—an important theoretical framework for public health. American Journal of Public Health, 102, 1267–1273. Chang, S. (2016). Is gay the new Asian: Marriage equality and the dawn of a new model minority. Asian American Law Journal, 23, 5. https://heinonline.org/HOL/ Page?handle=hein.journals/aslj23&id=11&div=&collection=

182  Stephen Russell and Amy L. McCurdy Chao, R., & Tseng, V. (2002). Parenting of Asians. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Social conditions and applied parenting (Vol. 4, 2nd ed., pp. 59–93). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Choi, Y., & Lahey, B. B. (2006). Testing the model minority stereotype: Youth behaviors across racial and ethnic groups. Social Service Review, 80(3), 419–452. https://doi. org/10.1086/505288 Cochran, S. D., Mays, V. M., & Leung, L. (1991). Sexual practices of heterosexual Asian-American young adults: Implications for risk of HIV infection. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 20(4), 381–391. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01542618 Collier, K. L., van Beusekom, G., Bos, H. M. W., & Sandfort, T. G. M. (2013). Sexual orientation and gender identity/Expression related peer victimization in adolescence: A systematic review of associated psychosocial and health outcomes. The Journal of Sex Research, 50(3–4), 299–317. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2012.750639 Endo, R. (2021). Diversity, equity, and inclusion for some but not all: LGBQ Asian American youth experiences at an urban public high school. Multicultural Education Review, 13(1), 25–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/2005615X.2021.1890311 Fuligni, A. J., Yip, T., & Tseng, V. (2002). The impact of family obligation on the daily activities and psychological well-being of Chinese American adolescents. Child Development, 73(1), 302–314. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00407 Gee, G. C., Spencer, M. S., Chen, J., & Takeuchi, D. (2007). A nationwide study of discrimination and chronic health conditions among Asian Americans. American Journal of Public Health, 97(7), 1275–1282. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2006. 091827 Ghavami, N., Katsiaficas, D., & Rogers, L. O. (2016). Chapter two – toward an intersectional approach in developmental science: The role of race, gender, sexual orientation, and immigrant status. In S. S. Horn, M. D. Ruck, & L. S. Liben (Eds.), Advances in child development and behavior (Vol. 50, pp. 31–73). JAI. https://doi.org/10.1016/ bs.acdb.2015.12.001 Goffman, E. (2009). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Simon and Schuster. Guthrie, G. M., & Jacobs, P. J. (1976). Child rearing and personality development in the Philippines. Bookmark. Hahm, H. C., Wong, F. Y., Huang, Z. J., Ozonoff, A., & Lee, J. (2008). Substance use among Asian Americans and pacific islanders sexual minority adolescents: Findings from the national longitudinal study of adolescent health. Journal of Adolescent Health, 42(3), 275–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.08.021 Homma, Y., & Saewyc, E. M. (2007). The emotional well-being of Asian-American sexual minority youth in school. Journal of LGBT Health Research, 3(1), 67–78. https://doi.org/10.1300/j463v03n01_08 Huang, L. N. (1994). An integrative approach to clinical assessment and intervention with Asian-American adolescents. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 23(1), 21–31. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15374424jccp2301_4 Kann, L. (2018). Youth risk behavior surveillance—United States, 2017. MMWR. Surveillance Summaries, 67. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.ss6708a1 Kosciw, J. G., Greytak, E. A., Zongrone, A. D., Clark, C. M., Truong, N. L., & Gay, L. and S. E. N. (GLSEN). (2018). The 2017 national school climate survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer youth in our nation’s schools. Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN). http://www.glsen.org.

Intersectionality and Multiple Minority Experiences  183 Kurien, P. A. (2003). To be or not to be South Asian: Contemporary Indian American politics. Journal of Asian American Studies, 6(3), 261–288. https://doi.org/10.1353/ jaas.2004.0020 Lee, J., & Hahm, H. C. (2012). HIV risk, substance use, and suicidal behaviors among Asian American lesbian and bisexual women. AIDS Education and Prevention, 24(6), 549–563. https://doi.org/10.1521/aeap.2012.24.6.549 Lee, J. P., Lipperman-Kreda, S., Saephan, S., & Kirkpatrick, S. (2013). Tobacco environment for Southeast Asian American youth: Results from a participatory research project. Journal of Ethnicity in Substance Abuse, 12(1), 30–50. https://doi.org/10.108 0/15332640.2013.759499 Li, M. (2014). Discrimination and psychiatric disorder among Asian American immigrants: A national analysis by subgroups. Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health, 16(6), 1157–1166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10903-013-9920-7 Luthar, S. S., Ebbert, A. M., & Kumar, N. L. (2021). Risk and resilience among Asian American youth: Ramifications of discrimination and low authenticity in self-presentations. American Psychologist, 76(4), 643–657. https://doi.org/10.1037/ amp0000764 Meyer, I. H., & Frost, D. M. (2013). Minority stress and the health of sexual minorities. In C. J. Patterson & A. R. D'Augelli (Eds.), Handbook of psychology and sexual orientation (pp. 252–266). Oxford University Press. Mulvey, K. L., Hoffman, A. J., Gönültaş, S., Hope, E. C., & Cooper, S. M. (2018). Understanding experiences with bullying and bias-based bullying: What matters and for whom? Psychology of Violence, 8(6), 702–711. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000206 Nash, J. C. (2008). Re-thinking intersectionality. Feminist Review, 89(1), 1–15. https:// doi.org/10.1057/fr.2008.4 Ngo, B., & Lee, S. J. (2007). Complicating the image of model minority success: A review of Southeast Asian American education. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 415–453. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307309918 Ocampo, A. C., & Soodjinda, D. (2016). Invisible Asian Americans: The intersection of sexuality, race, and education among gay Asian Americans. Race Ethnicity and Education, 19(3), 480–499. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2015.1095169 Oh, D., & Wha Han, M. (2022). Globalization from above and below: Rejecting superficial multiculturalism and igniting anti-Korean sentiment in Japan. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 25(1), 51–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/13678779211037358 Parent, M. C., Johnson, K. E., Russell, S., & Gobble, T. (2020). Homophobic bullying and suicidal behavior among US heterosexual youth. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 59(2), 205–208.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jaac.2019.08.473 Park, M. (2012). Asian American masculinity eclipsed: A legal and historical perspective of emasculation through US immigration practices. Modern American, 8(1), 5–17. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/moderam8&i=7 Park, M., Choi, Y., Yasui, M., Hedeker, D., & Specificity, Commonality, and Generalizability in Social-Emotional Development Special Section Editors. (2021). Racial discrimination and the moderating effects of racial and ethnic socialization on the mental health of Asian American youth. Child Development, 92(6), 2284–2298. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13638 Peguero, A. A., & Williams, L. M. (2013). Racial and ethnic stereotypes and bullying victimization. Youth & Society, 45(4), 545–564. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X11424757

184  Stephen Russell and Amy L. McCurdy Pe-Pua, R., & Protacio-Marcelino, E. A. (2000). Sikolohiyang Pilipino (Filipino psychology): A legacy of Virgilio G. Enriquez. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 3(1), 49–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-839X.00054 Poon, C., Saewyc, E., & Chen, W. (2011). Enacted stigma, problem substance use, and protective factors among Asian sexual minority youth in British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health, 30(2), 47–64. https://doi.org/10.7870/cjcmh-2011-0016 Price, M., Polk, W., Hill, N. E., Liang, B., & Perella, J. (2019). The intersectionality of identity-based victimization in adolescence: A person-centered examination of mental health and academic achievement in a US high school. Journal of Adolescence, 76, 185–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2019.09.002 Qin, D. B., Way, N., & Rana, M. (2008). The “model minority” and their discontent: Examining peer discrimination and harassment of Chinese American immigrant youth. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2008(121), 27–42. https://doi.org/10.1002/cd.221 Ramisetty-Mikler, S. (1993). Asian Indian immigrants in America and sociocultural issues in counseling. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 21(1), 36–49. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1912.1993.tb00581.x Rosenbloom, S. R., & Way, N. (2004). Experiences of discrimination among African American, Asian American, and Latino adolescents in an urban high school. Youth & Society, 35(4), 420–451. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X03261479 Russell, S. T., Sinclair, K. O., Poteat, V. P., & Koenig, B. W. (2012). Adolescent health and harassment based on discriminatory bias. American Journal of Public Health, 102(3), 493–495. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2011.300430 Ryabov, I. (2015). Relation of peer effects and school climate to substance use among Asian American adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 42, 115–127. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2015.04.007 Santos, C. E., & Toomey, R. B. (2018). Integrating an intersectionality lens in theory and research in developmental science. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2018(161), 7–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/cad.20245 Shih, K. Y., & Chang, I. J. (2021). The invisible costs of the model minority myth on Asian American families. NCFR Report. https://www.ncfr.org/ncfr-report/fall-2021/ invisible-costs-model-minority-myth-asian-american-families Sue, D. W., Bucceri, J., Lin, A. I., Nadal, K. L., & Torino, G. C. (2009). Racial microaggressions and the Asian American experience. Asian American Journal of Psychology, S(1), 88–101. https://doi.org/10.1037/1948-1985.S.1.88 Suinn, R. M. (2010). Reviewing acculturation and Asian Americans: How acculturation affects health, adjustment, school achievement, and counseling. Asian American Journal of Psychology, 1(1), 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018798 Sun, C., Liberman, R., Butler, A., Lee, S. Y., & Webb, R. (2015). Shifting receptions: Asian American stereotypes and the exploration of comprehensive media literacy. The Communication Review, 18(4), 294–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/10714421.2015.1085778 Suzuki, B. H. (2002). Revisiting the model minority stereotype: Implications for student affairs practice and higher education. New Directions for Student Services, 2002(97), 21–32. https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.36 Thapa, A., Cohen, J., Guffey, S., & Higgins-D’Alessandro, A. (2013). A review of school climate research. Review of Educational Research, 83(3), 357–385. https://doi. org/10.3102/0034654313483907

Intersectionality and Multiple Minority Experiences  185 Tran, N., & Birman, D. (2010). Questioning the model minority: Studies of Asian American academic performance. Asian American Journal of Psychology, 1(2), 106–118. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019965 Wei, M., Liao, K. Y. H., Chao, R. C. L., Mallinckrodt, B., Tsai, P. C., & BotelloZamarron, R. (2010). Minority stress, perceived bicultural competence, and depressive symptoms among ethnic minority college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 57(4), 411. Wong, F., & Halgin, R. (2006). The “model minority”: Bane or blessing for Asian Americans? Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 34(1), 38–49. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1912.2006.tb00025.x Yang, K. (2004). Southeast Asian American children: Not the “model minority.” Future of Children, 14(2), 127–133. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ795838

11 Inter-minority Conflict in Japanese Context Masanori Shiraishi and Yuichi Toda

Introduction The previous chapter examined multiple forms of minority experiences in schooling, including the intersection of sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) with other forms of discrimination and bullying, from a school-based sample of Asian American youth in California. It concluded that minority stress and intersectionality is an important theoretical framework drawn from the US context that provides a theoretical lens for understanding multiple minority issues in schools and has implications for SOGI issues in Asian schooling. The previous chapter also noted for researchers and scholars that future research should ultimately consider how multiple minority identities intersect in the lives of young people. Among the intersections of multiple minority identities, some identities that are considered incompatible with each other may intersect within an individual. This chapter will examine intersectional and multiple minorities from a different perspective based on Inter-minority Conflict (IMC). Background and Objectives Since the modern times Meiji government began classifying and taking measures against various minority groups marginalized and discriminated against, minority issues in Japan have been mainly discussed by minority groups, such as the deaf, children, elderly, and women (Akitomi, 2018). In complex, highly differentiated societies like our own, all persons have multiple group identifications (Young, 1990). The identity experienced by an individual is not always singular. There can be overlapping minorities within an individual, such as being a “person with disabilities” and a “woman” simultaneously or identifying with an intersectional and multiple minority. In addition to intersectionality, there is the phenomenon of “IMC,” such as the conflict between same-sex couples (married or not married) and Muslims living in a non-Islamic state who are opposed to same-sex marriage. Furthermore, for individuals who have experiences at the intersection of multiple minority identities, such intergroup conflict within the individual is possible. These minority complexes and DOI: 10.4324/9781003430414-11

Inter-minority Conflict in Japanese Context  187 conflicts are not new phenomena that have emerged recently, but rather they have been neglected in the past because each minority status has been treated individually. These phenomena have become more visible because of the changes in the way we understand minority issues. This chapter will focus on IMC, a new way of looking at minority issues and organizing IMC in Japan that can be made more visible in the future. The meaning of the term “minority” differs depending on a given social and geographic context. This chapter considers minority experience in Japan, using the term “minority” as it is relevant in the Japanese context. In this chapter, minorities refer to “people who require reasonable consideration and support to lead a social life on par with the majority living in a certain society” (Shiraishi, Sakai, & Toda, 2021), based on the concept of diffuse minorities by Iwama & Yu (2007) in the Japanese society. Additionally, IMC is defined as a conflicting relationship between minority groups. Minority Groups The discussion on IMC in Japan began when Ueno (1995) discussed “relations among socially vulnerable groups (mutual discrimination)” as an example of multiple discrimination. Based on the term “Fukugo-sabetsu (multiple discrimination)” coined by Ueno, she summarized the relationships among minority groups as follows. 1 The relationship between the dominant group, majority, and the socially weaker group, minority (so-called discrimination) 2 Relationships among socially vulnerable groups (mutual discrimination) 3 Relationships within socially vulnerable groups (multiple discrimination) 4 Relationships within multiple identities of individuals belonging to socially vulnerable groups (conflicts) Ueno then discusses “class,” “gender,” “ethnicity,” and “disability” as minorities and argues that “age” and “sexuality” are also important variables. Next, we will attempt to organize minority groups from the official perspective of the Japanese government. From the definition of minorities in this chapter, minorities are people in need of consideration and support. In the background, there is the fact that each minority group has experienced no small number of human rights difficulties and damage during their social lives. How to enumerate the various minority groups is also a difficult issue. Table 11.1 provides a summary of the major human rights issues in Japanese society as listed in The Protection of Human Rights published by the Human Rights Bureau, Ministry of Justice, Japan. Based on Ueno’s discussion and the Ministry of Justice, the minority groups and their respective definitions that will be taken up in organizing IMC in this chapter are presented in Table 11.2.

188  Masanori Shiraishi and Yuichi Toda Table 11.1  Major Human Rights Issues from The Protection of Human Rights, 2021, Human Rights Bureau, Ministry of Justice, Japan 1. Women – sex crimes and sexual violence, domestic violence, harassment 2. Children – bullying, corporal punishment, child abuse, sexual exploitation 3. Elders 4. Persons with disabilities (PwD) 5. Buraku discrimination (Dowa Issues)a 6. The Ainu Peopleb 7. Foreigners 8. Patients of infections – HIV, Hepatitis, COVID-19 Infection 9. Present and former Hansen’s disease (also known internationally as leprosy) patients and their families 10.  People released from prison after serving their sentence 11.  Crime victims, etc. 12.  Human rights violations on the Internet 13.  Victims abducted by North Korean Authorities 14.  People experiencing homelessness (houselessness) 15.  Sexual orientation and gender identity 16.  Trafficking in persons (coercive sexual services and labor) 17.  Human rights problems arising after the Great East Japan Earthquake Buraku discrimination (Dowa Issues) is a unique minority in Japan. For more information on Buraku discrimination, please refer to the booklet, https://www.moj.go.jp/content/001361963.pdf b Ainu is the indigenes of Japan. a

We extend this list to include “Religion (Judaism, Christianity, or Islam)” as a minority group, which was not mentioned in Ueno’s discussion and The Protection of Human Rights. According to the 2021 Religion Yearbook published by the Agency of Cultural Affairs, Government of Japan, 94.9% of Japanese religious believers identify with either Buddhism or Shinto. Judaists, Christians, and Muslims are a minority in the Japanese society. Thus, Japanese Muslims also share the same issues that non-Japanese Muslims living in Japan face, for example, “‘Food, Education, and Cemeteries’ are the issues that Muslims in Japan face” (Tanada & Okai, 2015). In other words, it is assumed that “religion” does not overlap with “foreigners, ethnicity, and race,” which are discussed in this chapter, and therefore, it is defined as a minority group. However, as Butler (1990) states, “The assumption of its essential incompleteness permits that category to serve as a permanently available site of contested meanings.” Thus, categories are inherently incomplete. Similarly, conflicts are also inherently incomplete. Although we discuss these intergroup processes in terms of conflict, not all individuals or groups will experience or perceive their intergroup interactions as conflict. Additionally, there are cases in which there are conflicts between groups within individuals, such as sexual minority individuals who choose to marry same-sex partners while practicing a religion that has aspects of negative attitudes toward same-sex marriage.

Inter-minority Conflict in Japanese Context  189 Table 11.2  Minority Groups and Definitions in this Chapter Minority Groups

Definition

Ueno (1995)

The Protection of Human Rights, Human Rights Bureau, Ministry of Justice, Japan

Gender (Women)

Women as a minority due to socially and culturally created gender differences. Age-derived minority.

gender

Women

age

Children, elderly people,

Minority derived from own disability or illness.

disability

PwD, patients with infections, present and former Hansen’s disease (also known internationally as leprosy), patients Sexual orientation and gender identity

Age(Children/ Elderly) PwDs/Patients

SOGI Minority

A minority derived from SOGIESC (①Sexual orientation, ②Gender identity, ③Gender expression, and ④Sex characteristics) that deviates from the uniform male/female image considered common in society. Buraku Minority originating Discrimination from a connection to (Social Class) the Hisabetsu Buraku. Foreigners/ Minorities derived from Ethnicity/Race foreign connections, including Ainu and other ethnic minorities and biracial. Religion (Judaists, Minorities with a Christians, or connection to Judaism, Muslims) Christianity, or Islam (Buddhism, Shintoism, Confucianism, new religions, and neoreligions from Asia and Japan are not included).

sexuality

class

Buraku discrimination (Dowa Issues)

ethnicity

The Ainu people, Foreigners

─

─

190  Masanori Shiraishi and Yuichi Toda As with the minority group argument, the conflict argument is incomplete in that it does not apply to all cases, but this chapter will summarize the IMC in Japan to the extent that space permits and the authors’ knowledge is limited. IMCs in Japan Table 11.3 shows the range of IMCs in Japan, organized on the basis of previous studies. Note that while the minority groups in the table reflect the Japanese context, the IMC does not necessarily reflect the actual situation in Japan most accurately, as in many cases, they are not yet visible in Japan. Therefore, studies and examples are partially cited from foreign cases and other sources. However, the events listed in the table as “clear conflicts” may surface in Japanese society in the near future. IMC between Gender (Women) and PwD As for the various IMCs, we first note the conflict between elective abortion as a woman’s right and the rights of PwD. In Japan, the conflict between the two came to the fore in 1972 when a bill to revise the Eugenic Protection Law was submitted to the Diet (Tateiwa, 2019). As a brief history of that time, there was a movement to revise the Eugenic Protection Law to regulate abortion, which was opposed by women’s liberation groups. The women’s liberation side raised slogans such as, “Women will decide whether or not to give birth,” and called the proposed revision of the Eugenic Protection Law an “anti-abortion law” in their opposition activities. Alternatively, Aoi Shiba no Kai, a group of people affected by cerebral palsy, criticized the women’s liberation groups, asking whether aborting a fetus with a disability was part of “a woman’s decision.” To put this in context, in 1970, a mother strangled her severely mentally and physically disabled child to death because of the pain of caring for him, and the media published articles defending the mother. PwDs could not overlook the opposition by women’s liberation to abortion restrictions because PwDs had challenged the ablest argument, “The healthy society that believes that disabled people deserve to be killed and that it is the mother who must be saved” (Yokota, 2016). However, the intention behind the slogan of women’s liberation “women decide whether to give birth or not” was more accurately “the state should not control women by telling them to give birth or not to give birth” (Ogino, 2014) and did not envision abortion to be selective from the standpoint of eugenic thought. In response to criticism from the groups concerned, women’s liberation stopped referring to the proposed revision of the Eugenic Protection Law as an “anti-abortion law,” and both sides reached a consensus to eliminate the fetal clause, thereby preventing the revision of the law at that time. However, the persistent conflict between the right to life of the PwDs/Patients and women’s right to abortion, which argues that “freedom of abortion” is neither self-evident nor given but “must be fought for and defended” (Ueno,

Table 11.3  IMC in Japanese Context Gender (Women)

PwDs/Patients SOGI Minority Buraku Discrimination (Social Class)

Foreigners/ Religion(Judaists, Ethnicity/Race Christians, or Muslims)

▲

★ —

▲ ▲

★ —

— — —

— ★ —

▲

★ ★▲

—

★▲

▲

▲

—

▲

— —

▲

▲

▲

—

—

—

▲

▲

—

—

—

★

—

—

★

—

★ There is an IMC ▲ Not clear IMC but similar situation. ─ Not known at this time, but may surface in the future.

— —

Inter-minority Conflict in Japanese Context  191

Gender (Women) Age(Children/ Elderly) PwDs/Patients SOGI Minority Buraku Discrimination (Social Class) Foreigners/ Ethnicity/Race Religion(Judaists, Christians, or Muslims)

Age(Children/ Elderly)

192  Masanori Shiraishi and Yuichi Toda 1996), has been a source of controversy. Examples include the debate on the proposed revision of the Eugenic Protection Law in the 1980s and the time when new prenatal diagnostic techniques became widely available due to advances in reproductive medicine. Recently, the prevalence of new types of prenatal diagnosis (Non-Invasive Prenatal Genetic Testing) in particular has brought this issue to the forefront again. IMC between Gender (Women) and SOGI Minorities Next, we will focus on the conflict between activities aimed at improving the status of women and those aimed at dismantling the gender binary based on the male-female sex dichotomous categories. According to The Global Gender Gap Report 2021 by the World Economic Forum, Japan’s overall score on the gender gap index in 2021 is 0.656, ranking 120th of 156 countries, the lowest level among developed countries. Among Asian countries, it is lower than South Korea, China, and even Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN countries). Since 1965, when Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique was translated into Japanese (Friedan, 1965), the movement for women’s liberation has flourished in Japan, including Chizuko Ueno, author of the 1988 bestseller Onna-asobi [Womanizing] (Ueno, 1988), Yoko Tajima, a 1990s TV personality who later gained enough support in the movement to become an Upper House member, and many other researchers have presented numerous perspectives on the current situation and issues facing Japanese women, including criticism of the patriarchal system. Despite this, as of 2021, the gender gap index is lower than that of other countries. In Japan today, a patriarchal system still exists in which men make important political and economic decisions and women obey and live accordingly (Nakamura, 2021). This shows that women are forced to be disadvantaged as minorities in a gendered society. Alternatively, looking at the world, several trends challenge gender as a binary construct. Numerous studies have been conducted and accumulated on queer theory, including Teresa de Lauretis ’s article that brought queer theory to the world in 1991 (“Queer Theory: Lesbian and Gay Sexuality Introduction”) (Lauretis, 1991), “The Gender Trouble” by Judith Butler (1990), which rejected placing sex at the foundation of the concept of gender. As queer theory research progressed, approaches have begun to emerge that deconstruct the absoluteness of clear-cut gender binary from a transgender perspective (Ekins & King, 2006). What does it mean to deconstruct and dismantle the gender binary? For example, 65% of Japanese female workers had problems related to menstruation as a problem in their employment, and, in particular, about 80% of those in their 20s to 40s said they felt difficulties in securing employment (Sasaki et al., 2021). If this study is viewed from the perspective of queerness, it raises the question of whether menstruation can be defined as a problem for working women in the first place. This is because menstruation is not experienced by a SOGI minority woman who was born without ovaries or a uterus. Furthermore,

Inter-minority Conflict in Japanese Context  193 female-bodied SOGI minority men may menstruate. In other words, from a queer perspective, menstruation cannot be viewed as a work problem for women, but rather as a work problem for people who menstruate. Compared to the previous social situation, because of the greater visibility of SOGI Minorities, such as transgender people, problems that were once considered “women’s problems” that remain unresolved to this day are no longer defined as “women’s problems” in a narrow sense. So, should menstruation as a labor-related problem be reframed as a separate, individual-level issue – that is, a “problem for people who menstruate” rather than a “women’s problem”? As mentioned earlier, Japanese society today still is a society where men are the dominant group and women are the minority. Therefore, there is a risk that existing women’s issues will become invisible if we ignore this reality and promote only a queer perspective and view women’s issues as individual problems. Here, the potential incompatibility is evident in the conflict between the efforts to improve the status of women from the standpoint of gender inequality based on a binary construct and those that challenge these ideas from a queer perspective and the standpoint of SOGI Minorities. IMC between Gender (Women) and Religion (Judaists, Christians, or Muslims) Gender and religion have been regarded as having “an awkward relationship” in which religion and feminism deny each other and are unable to coexist (Kawahashi, 2016). In many cases, the subject of religion has been neglected in gender feminist studies because religion appears to constrain and oppress women in both ideology and institutions, and it has even been said that an attempt to marry religious and gender studies is an antinomy (Kawahashi & Kuroki, 2004). From the perspective of religious studies, they have also been strongly resistant to gender studies (Kawahashi, 2016). Nakamura (2021) describes the history of disregard for women in religion (Judaism, Christianity, or Islam) as follows. The interpretation of the Book of Genesis has led to the teaching of misogyny in Christianity. First, it says that after God created the male, “as a helper of the male,” he created the female and female from the male’s helper bone, which leads to the interpretation that from the beginning of creation, the female was to be under the dominion of the male. Second, women led the violation of God’s command that led to man’s expulsion from Paradise. Therefore, women were taught that they were equally inferior and easily seduced and must be kept under men’s control and suppression. Among the events that can be seen as a clear conflict between Gender (Women) and Religion (Judaists, Christians, or Muslims) is the controversy over the propriety of abortion. This controversy, known as the pro-life, pro-choice controversy is

194  Masanori Shiraishi and Yuichi Toda a dispute between the pro-life camp, which calls for a complete ban on abortion on the grounds that abortion is a murder because the creation of the fetus is the work of God, and the pro-choice camp, which sees abortion as a right of women. (Tajima, 2006) It is a conflict between the position that abortion is absolutely unacceptable based on religious beliefs and the position that abortion is acceptable as a woman’s right. In Japan, a movement calling for prohibiting abortion based on religious beliefs was launched by the religious group “Seicho-no-ie” at the time of the aforementioned revision of the Eugenic Protection Law in 1972, but this chapter will not cover it in detail because Seicho-no-ie is not considered a minority group in this chapter. IMC between Gender (Women) and Religion (Judaists, Christians, or Muslims) are rare in Japan but may become obvious in the future as the Christian and Muslim populations increase. IMC between SOGI Minorities and Religion (Judaists, Christians, or Muslims): Homophobia Based on Religious Beliefs Similar to the relationship between gender and religion, there is a history of conflict between SOGI Minorities and Religion (Judaists, Christians, or Muslims). It is noted that “Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, with the Hebrew Bible as their common scripture, have long persecuted homosexuals based on its writings” (Fone, 2000). While some countries have overcome the religiously backed persecution of homosexuals and have even legalized same-sex marriage, others still hold homosexuality illegal. The idea of homosexuality is rather sensitive in the Arab-Islamic world, and it is often considered taboo and “haram” (forbidden; Wester, 2017), especially in Islamic countries, where it is still often illegal. In response to the fact that religious beliefs may include homophobia, there is an approach called “Queer Theology” that addresses this conflict head-on. Kudo (2022) explains that “Queer Theology is part of the development of queer activism and queer theory since the 1980s, and can be defined as an attempt to incorporate a ‘queer’ perspective (including its multiple meanings) into the framework of Christian Theology.” For the Queer Theology approach to be viable, it is necessary to assume that the interpretation of God’s word in Christianity and Islam varies from sect to sect and individual to individual. In other words, others cannot intervene in the individual interpretations of religious beliefs. However, as a consequence, homophobia based on religious beliefs is tolerated by some believers, even when new doctrinal interpretations are proposed, thus creating a conflict between SOGI Minorities and Religion (Judaists, Christians, or Muslims) in some cases. One example of a conflict between SOGI Minorities and Religion (Judaists, Christians, or Muslims) in Japan is the case of the United Church of Christ in Japan. A regular council member “brought up the Bible and

Inter-minority Conflict in Japanese Context  195 condemned homosexuals” in 1998 when a gay person was approved as a teacher (pastor; Kobayashi, 2021). This “discrimination incident” is now regarded as “the first public incident of its kind in Japanese Christianity” (Horie, 2006). Since the manifestation of the conflict, there have been attempts to bridge SOGI Minorities and Religion (Judaists, Christians, or Muslims) from the standpoint of Queer Theology in Japan (Horie, 2006, Kobayashi, 2021, Kudo, 2022, etc.). Discussions In this chapter, we focused on the phenomenon of IMC, which has become visible due to changes in the way minority issues are perceived, and attempted to organize it by looking over several conflicting issues. First, we set the boundaries of minorities to be addressed in the Japanese context and organized each IMC. In this chapter, we considered the following four as having distinct IMCs: (1) Gender (Women) and PwDs/Patients, (2) Gender (Women) and SOGI Minorities, (3) Gender (Women) and Religion (Judaists, Christians, or Muslims), (4) SOGI Minorities and Religion (Judaists, Christians, or Muslims). Of the distinct IMCs discussed in this paper, Gender (Women) related conflicts accounted for three of four cases. These conflicts have become obvious recently as Gender (Women) has come to be more visible as a minority issue. In the future, as more minorities become visible in Japanese society, IMC will become more apparent. However, we would like to reiterate that the boundaries between the conflicting issues and minorities discussed in this chapter are not complete to begin with and that IMC and identity continue to be constructed from time to time in response to the ever-changing society and individuals. Despite these limitations, this chapter reveals that when considering the intersectionality of minorities within individuals, various conflict issues can arise among minorities. While this chapter summarizes IMC based mainly on previous research, we intend to illuminate the reality of IMC, the intersectionality of majorities and minorities within individuals, and the conflicts that arise when this occurs, through interviews with minority groups and specific examples in the future. Also, the discussion in this chapter is based on the situation in Japan, and it is possible that IMCs may exist in other parts of the world in ways that reflect their regional and historical circumstances. As research progresses on a global scale, other forms of IMC undiscussed in this chapter will become clearer. To overcome IMCs, the authors believe it is necessary to weave connections among minorities based on several frameworks and to sort out the factors that cause IMCs. As research on IMC at the global level keeps advancing and uncovers many cases of IMC, it may become possible to identify the factors that generate IMC. To overcome IMC, it will be necessary to examine and consider it from a more international perspective in the future.

196  Masanori Shiraishi and Yuichi Toda Acknowledgment This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 22K02016. References Akitomi, H. (2018). A viewpoint on research for socially vulnerable people and minorities (part 1). Journal of Aoyama Gakuin Women’s Junior College, 72, 35–48. https:// doi.org/10.34321/20679 Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity (2007th ed.). Routledge. Ekins, R., & King, D. (2006). The transgender phenomenon. SAGE Publications. Fone, B. (2000). Homophobia: A history. Picador. Friedan, B. (1965). The Feminine Mystique (F. Miura, Trans.; 2004th ed.). Daiwashobo. Horie, Y. (2006). The “lesbian” way of life: Questioning Christian heterosexism. Shinkyoshuppan. Human Rights Bureau Ministry of Justice, Japan. (2021). The protection of human rights summary of the white paper on human rights education and awareness raising. https://www.moj.go.jp/content/001361963.pdf Iwama, A., & Yu, H. (2007). The world of “minorities.” In A. Iwama, & H. Yu (Eds.), What is a minority: Comparative sociology of concepts and policies (pp 1–22). Mineruva-shobo. Kawahashi, N. (2016). Feminist anthropology’s vision of women and religion. In N. Kawanishi, & K. Komatsu (Eds.), Politics of religion and gender: A feminist anthropological approach (pp. 23–42). Showado. Kawahashi, N., & Kuroki, M. (2004). Mixed blessings: Religion, feminisms and postcolonialism. Jinbun Shoin. Kobayashi, A. (2021). Homosexuality and the new testament: Sexual differentiation and sexual power structures in the ancient Mediterranean world. Fuujinsha. Kudo, M. (2022). The challenge of queer theology. Shinkyoshuppan. Lauretis, T. D. (1991). Queer theory: Lesbian and gay sexualities. Special Issue of Differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies, 3(2), 3–18. Nakamura, T. (2021). How discrimination against women has been created. Shueisha. Ogino, M. (2014). A woman’s body: After feminism. Iwanami Shoten. Sasaki, N., Hidaka, Y., Asai, Y., Sakuraya, A., Hino, A., Inoue, R., Imamura, K., Watanabe, K., Tsutsumi, A., & Kawakami, N. (2021). Expected research in the workplace among Japanese female workers: A cross-sectional online survey based on the framework of patient and public involvement. Sangyo Eiseigaku Zasshi, 63(6), 275–290. https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/sangyoeisei/advpub/0/advpub_2020-002-B/_pdf Shiraishi, M., Sakai, M., & Toda, Y. (2021). Issues and challenges confronting multiple minority identities: A study of Muslim & SOGI minorities. Tokyo Future University Bulletin, 15(79–92). https://doi.org/10.24603/tfu.15.0_79 Tajima, Y. (2006). Vitalism and Christianity: Learning from the pro-life and pro-choice arguments in the United States. Bulletin of the Japan Lutheran College and Theological Seminary: Theologia-Diakonia, 40, 19–30. https://luther.repo.nii.ac.jp/?action= repository_uri&item_id=19&file_id=18&file_no=1 Tanada, H., & Okai, H. (2015). Islam in Japan: Current situation and challenges for the Muslim community. The News on Religious Affairs, 119, 1–22. https://warp.da.ndl. go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/9218806/www.bunka.go.jp/shukyouhoujin/shumujiho/pdf/ 119jiho.pdf

Inter-minority Conflict in Japanese Context  197 Tateiwa, S. (2019). Toward weakness and freedom: Self-determination, caregiving, and the art of life and death. Seidosha. Ueno, C. (1988). Onna-Asobi(womanizing). Gakuyo Shobo. Ueno, C. (1995). Multiple discrimination. In S. Inoue (Eds.), Contemporary sociology sociology of discrimination and coexistence. Ueno, C. (2015). The politics of difference (2015th ed., pp. 357–395). Iwanami Shoten. Ueno, C. (1996). Reproductive rights/health and feminism in Japan. In C. Ueno, & R. Watanuki (Eds.), Reproductive health and environment: Toward world together. (Re-recording) Ueno, C. (2015). The politics of difference (2015th ed., pp. 357–395). Iwanami Shoten. Wester, E. (2017). Between Allah and me. Uppsala University, Department of Theology, Master Thesis, 1–58. http://uu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1102618/FULLTEXT01.pdf Yokota, H. (2016). The thought of killing the disabled, enlarged and new edition. Gendaishokan. Young, I. M. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference (2011th ed.). Princeton University Press.

12 Inter-minority Empathy Makiko Kasai

Introduction As shown in the previous chapters, being lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, questioning, queer, and so on (LGBTQ+) person can create a high risk of victimization. This situation is true for not only LGBTQ+ individuals but also other minority groups, such as those based on ethnicity, nationality, disability, and so on. Living as a minority comes with a significant degree of stress – termed “minority stress.” Minority stress describes the well-documented chronically high levels of stress faced by members of stigmatized minority groups (Meyer, 2003). A number of factors, including poor social support and low socioeconomic status, and the experience of interpersonal prejudice and discrimination may cause this stress (Pascoe & Richman, 2009). Numerous studies have shown that when minority individuals experience a high degree of prejudice, this can cause stress responses that accrue over time, eventually leading to poor mental and physical health (Meyer, 2003; Meyer & Northridge, 2007). Minorities Reconsidered A minority group traditionally refers to a group of people whose practices, race, religion, ethnicity, or other characteristics are fewer in number than the primary groups matching those classifications. However, in present-day sociology, a minority group refers to a category of people who experience a relative disadvantage as compared to the members of the dominant social group. Minority group members often face discrimination in multiple areas of life, including housing, employment, health care, and education, among others (Williams, 1999). Minority group membership is typically based on differences in observable characteristics or practices, such as ethnicity (ethnic minority), race (racial minority), religion (religious minority), sexual orientation (sexual minority), or disability. American sociologist Louis Wirth defined a minority group as

DOI: 10.4324/9781003430414-12

Inter-minority Empathy  199 a group of people who, because of their physical or cultural characteristics, are singled out from the others in the society in which they live for differential and unequal treatment, and who therefore regard themselves as objects of collective discrimination. (Wirth, 1945, p. 347) It is important to recognize that an individual may simultaneously hold membership in multiple minority groups (e.g., both a racial and religious minority) as outlined in the framework of intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1989). Discrimination against minorities depends on the manner in which two or more minorities intersect. Much like “traffic at an intersection (s), where there is traffic going in all four directions,” discrimination may come from all directions. Russell and Horn (2017) define intersectionality as “a system of various oppressions and very different elemental identities, created by the intersection of individual and social identities.” Although the number of group members is a factor, it is not the only reason for the emergence of a minority group. How, then, can the system of minority vs. majority be created? When we perceive people, we place them into social categories. We categorize ourselves as well as others according to classifications such as male/female, local/foreigner, adult/child, teacher/student, and so on. The category with fewer numbers and lower statuses is termed the “minority.” The term “homosexual” is used alone, but the term “heterosexual” is usually used only in contrast to “homosexual.” In other words, minorities (homosexuals in this example) are identified by a specific characteristic, such as sex, disability, or sexual orientation, while majorities (heterosexuals in this example) are rarely identified by a marked category unless it is to place them in contrast to minorities. Majority groups are usually unaware of their own privileges and take them for granted. Society functions based on the majority, and what is commonly referred to as “normal” or “customary,” is the majority’s standard. Minority and Minority Thinking about the relationship between two or more minorities from the perspective of the minority stress theory or intersectionality theory, leads to the discovery of complex discrimination, resulting in increased stress. Another important perspective that must be considered is that a person who falls into one minority group may be a majority group member in another respect. For example, a homosexual person who is a minority in terms of sexual orientation may also be a majority group member in terms of gender (male). In other words, one can be both a minority and majority group member at the same time. A person can be homosexual and female while being physically healthy and Caucasian; hence, in spite of their minority status, in such a case, they can also in physical or racial terms be a majority group member.

200  Makiko Kasai I personally experienced the occurrence of this phenomenon in a graduate course on ethnic minorities and sexual minorities, a class that is required to become a counselor in the United States. During a discussion between an African American female student and a Caucasian male student, the female student angrily stated, “I can’t believe that you have never thought about what kind of discriminatory experiences one might have, being African American. I experience that kind of discrimination 24/7.” The male student responded that he was indeed white and had never really felt what the experiences of black people in the United States were like, to which the female student responded with anger, “You bet! I can’t believe it.” The male student then asked, “Well, have you ever thought about what homosexuals experience every day?” The female student suddenly stopped; she looked surprised and said, “I never thought about that.” I live with discrimination and prejudice every day because I am gay,” he replied. In other words, both students were emphasizing their own minority status, but they were not aware of their own majority status until it was stated. Minority research has often focused on the perspectives of minority as opposed to majority groups, with minorities often focused on their own experiences of discrimination. However, it may prove a fruitful new line of approach to focus on the fact that those who claim to be minority group members are in fact members of the majority in other respects. Recent work by Shiraishi and Toda (Chapter 11 in this volume) points to the occurrence of inter-minority conflicts and describes the current situation as one in which one kind of minority sometimes causes conflict with other kinds of minorities. These conflicts lead to discrimination and mistreatment not only by the majority but also by other minority group members. The author found the concept of inter-minority empathy in the relationship between both minority and minority, and minority and majority group members. The concept is explained in detail in the next section. Prerequisite Study of Inter-minority Empathy Research on inter-minority empathy began with the awareness that people do not only hold negative attitudes toward minorities; there are many who hold positive attitudes. The question of what makes some people come to have positive attitudes toward minorities promptly comes to mind. An ally (meaning ally or collaborator) is a term used to describe nonLGBTQ+ people who are supportive of sexual minorities. Washington and Evans (1991) defined an ally as “a person who is a member of the dominant or majority group who works to end oppression in their personal and professional life through support of, and as an advocate for, the oppressed population” (Washington & Evans, 1991). Stotzer (2009) investigated the factors that lead to the formation of positive attitudes toward LGB individuals (Stotzer targeted only sexual orientation minorities). It became clear that allies felt empathy for their LGB friends when they expressed resistance to negative words and actions

Inter-minority Empathy  201 toward LGB people. It was also suggested that those who had formed positive attitudes toward LGB individuals at an early stage were less confused than those who had not formed positive attitudes at an early stage. The latter were also less likely to be confused when they later experienced LGB individuals revealing their sexual orientation. In addition, Ryan, Broad, Walsh, and Nutter (2013) interviewed university faculty members about their participation in ally activities, with the results revealing that faculty members who participated in ally activities at their workplaces did so in response to their professional obligations to protect the human rights of students, based on their social responsibilities. Other Western studies (Asta & Vacha-Hasse, 2013; Borgman, 2009) that have investigated the motivations for participating as an ally include having a close personal relationship with an LGBTQ+ person and negative emotions such as guilt for discrimination and prejudice. Similarly, a study by Duhigg et al. (2010) found that having significant friendships with LGBTQ+ individuals in the past and having the perception that they themselves were privileged and were in fact oppressors of minorities did not fit their values, thus motivating them to become allies. Russell (2011) found that the desire to be a person who aligns with values, such as a sense of justice or human rights, religious and moral beliefs, and professional and personal experiences within their own families, friends, and communities, motivated people to become LGBTQ+ advocates. Based on these results, we can categorize the motivations for becoming an LGBTQ+ ally as (1) “relational motivations,” such as personal and meaningful relationships with LGBTQ+ people or professional and personal relationships in the family and community; (2) “values-based motivations,” such as justice, religion, and human rights; and (3) “guilt-based motivations,” which is the awareness of minority’s oppression and privileges as the majority. Several studies have examined resolving or reducing conflicts between minority groups other than LGBTQ+ minorities. Research has suggested, for example, that positive intergroup interactions can lead to reduced prejudice (Allport, 1954). In addition, a study has proven that indirect and mediated contact experiences with other minority groups, if not direct interactions, have a similar effect, and awareness of an intergroup interaction can help to reduce prejudice toward the out-group (Wright, Aron, McLaughlin-Volpe, & Ropp, 1997). The common ingroup identity model ( Gaertner et al., 1993) was theorized to clarify this process. It suggests that one reason positive contact with outgroup members is successful is that it encourages individuals to move from an “us” and “them” categorization to a more inclusive “we” (Gaertner et al., 1993; Gaertner, Rust, Dovidio, Bachman, & Anastasio, 1996). The collective psychosocial resilience framework is another example from previous research. This framework refers to how a shared identity allows group members to express and expect solidarity and cohesion and thereby coordinate and draw upon collective sources of support (Drury et al., 2019). These theories focus on the positive and “we” experiences between different minority groups and explain how these experiences can lead to positive attitudes.

202  Makiko Kasai Previous studies have only described the phenomenon of people having positive attitudes toward LGBTQ+ people, without offering an adequate explanation for the mechanism as that induce people to have such positive attitudes. In the following section, the author will discuss the mechanism at play using the concept of inter-minority empathy. Inter-minority Empathy The concept of “inter-minority empathy” was discovered in the research of Kasai and Odo (2018). From Kasai and Odo’s (2018) interviews with people who were active as allies, one of their key motivations for participating in such activities was the empathy they felt for LGBTQ+ people based on their own experiences as minorities. Kasai and Odo (2018) titled this phenomenon “inter-minority empathy.” Examples of some of the comments that led to this inference include, “When I realize that I have a part which is also a minority, I felt like I can understand how LGBTQ people feel.” I don’t think I know exactly how they feel or what they experience, because I am not a sexual or gender minority, but I can empathize with them, I can understand them, and I might be able to help them. Some of the participants also talked about their own experiences as religious or racial minorities, an example of such a comment is, “It’s like being a majority and a minority at the same time, and it’s probably the same for everyone.” These motivations have not been discussed in previous research on allies or in surveys of other minority awareness and advocacy groups. These motivations do not simply involve having positive feelings for LGBTQ+ people, but rather being close to, empathizing with, and sympathizing with their feelings. For this reason, we have named this motive “inter-minority empathy.” Inter-minority empathy describes a situation when “empathy for the position and experiences of other minorities appears as the source of one’s experience as a minority” (Kasai & Odo, 2018, p. 56). Members of ethnic minorities have grown up with discrimination and prejudice. Those with various disabilities have experienced discrimination and negative attitudes from others. Other groups who have experienced a violation of their human rights include foreigners, older adults, children, and women, among others. Members of these groups are susceptible to the discrimination and prejudice of other minorities based on their own experiences and will show empathetic understanding and supportive attitudes. In other words, their “inward perspective,” which was only about themselves, has become an “outward perspective” of empathy for others. Among the various minorities, the largest minority group is “women.” Thus, previous findings that women are more positive toward sexual minorities than men (e.g., Wada, 1996; Dentsu, 2012) makes sense from the applied perspective of “inter-minority empathy.

Inter-minority Empathy  203 Ethnocultural empathy is similar to inter-minority empathy, but this concept targets cultural and ethnic minorities. Ethnocultural empathy is “empathy directed toward people from racial and ethnic groups who are different from one’s own ethnocultural group” (Wang et al., 2003, p. 221). This idea was derived from cultural empathy (Ridley & Lingle, 1996) related to understanding other ethnic groups’ perspectives. While researching this concept, Brouwer and Boroş (2010) investigated adults’ ethnocultural levels and perceptions of diversity. They found that ethnocultural empathy was related to positive attitudes toward diversity. Furthermore, it had a mediational role in intergroup contact and the development of constructive attitudes toward diversity. Thus, ethnocultural empathy studies have shown that experience of contact with and knowledge of other cultural minorities increases empathy and adaptation. The concept of inter-minority empathy concept, meanwhile, captures not only cultural but also other minorities and diversities. Therefore, it is widely versatile. It differs from one-way empathy, which relates to one group understanding another group. Instead, it represents reciprocal empathy: From knowing oneself to knowing others, and from knowing others to knowing oneself. Moreover, like ethnocultural empathy, direct contact experience is not required to create it. Based on the inter-minority empathy concept, once people get to know more about sexual orientation and gender identity minorities, and become more intimate with them, they are likely to reflect on their own similar experiences and try to better understand the other person’s experiences and feelings, displaying “inter-minority empathy.” One becomes more sensitive to one’s minority status, and to the minority issues experienced by others, when they can feel and relate to their pain and suffering. Those involved in specific aspects of life that are more sensitive to aggression and negative attitudes may thus be able to better understand the feelings of others better than those in the majority group (Kasai, 2019). A study by Kasai (2023) developed the inter-minority empathy scale, alongside a minority perception scale. The minority perception scale is designed to measure the degree to which people feel themselves as a minority. It can be suggested that there are individual differences in the degree to which people perceive themselves as minorities, even when they are of a minority status. As many studies have shown, those in the majority are rarely aware of their own majority/minority status and are thus commonly unaware of their own privilege as a majority (Mcintosh, 1989). Moreover, people who believe themselves to be members of a monoracial culture, such as Japan, seldom think about being a minority or majority themselves. Therefore, it is not enough to simply ask people about their status as minorities. In order to make people aware that they too are minorities, Kasai (2023) used a list of various minorities and asked research participants to check if any of these lists applied to them. For example, the minority list devised by Kasai for members of Japanese society consisted of nineteen categories, which are (1) name (unusual names), (2) place of birth, (3) nationality, (4) gender, (5) educational level, (6) culture and ethnicity,

204  Makiko Kasai (7) religion, (8) vegetarianism, (9) appearance (hair, skin, eye color, height, body shape, and others), (10) physical and health conditions (asthma, weakness, atopy, allergy, left-handedness, and others), (11) sexual and gender minorities (LGBTQ+ and others), (12) disabilities (including physical, mental, and developmental), (13) socioeconomic status, (14) single-parent families, (15) adoptive/foster parents, (16) academic difficulties, (17) truancy, (18) disaster victims, and (19) other (to be specified). From the survey results, it emerged that there was a positive relationship between positive experience as a minority and inter-minority empathy. There was also a positive relationship between the numbers of a given minority category and the occurrence of inter-minority empathy. It was also shown that there are two aspects of inter-minority empathy, which are concern for other minorities and support for other minorities. In other words, when the experience of being a minority has been positive or conscious, it leads to the development of concern for other minorities (empathy) and a desire to support them further (empathic action). Many studies and awareness-raising activities have been conducted on various human rights issues. However, each issue has traditionally been studied and analyzed separately. Only in a few cases have these issues also been studied or worked upon in collaboration with the other issues surrounding human rights and minorities. In the United States and Europe, those who fall into various overlapping minorities are considered “intersectional” and are considered a high-risk group with regard to bullying (Russell & Horn, 2017). However, no research has been performed to show that the existence or identification of intersectional minorities can lead to empathy. Inter-minority empathy means that one’s concern for oneself (inward) as a minority leads to increased concern for others (outward), allowing one to become more sensitive not only to one’s own minority-ness but also to the other minority issues experienced by others and to understand their pain and suffering. In addition, those who have experienced such certain aspects of life are likely to be more sensitive to the aggression and negative attitudes of others, which may lead them to understand others’ feelings better than those in the majority group (Kasai, 2019). Enhancing Inter-minority Empathy So, what kind of people are able to experience inter-minority empathy? First, let us consider what it means to understand the others’ minority as if it were one’s own. According to the concept of inter-minority empathy, it is not possible to be aware of and feel empathy for minorities unless one is aware of one’s own minority-ness. Thus, those who experience the “difficulty of living” as a minority, or the hurt that can be caused by being one, may have their eyes opened to the difficulties presented by other’s minority status. According to Lim and DeSteno (2016), it is clear that the more severe the adversity of the past experience, the greater the empathy and sympathy that is felt for others in need. Lim and DeSteno’s study also demonstrated that feeling sympathy and caring for others leads to an increase in the level of supportive behavior toward

Inter-minority Empathy  205 them. In other words, as a minority, the more we think of our past adversity as a painful experience, the more we experience it, the more we empathize with others, and the more supportive our behavior becomes. Kasai (2023) also showed that among the various minorities, different groups showed more empathy than other minorities. For example, those whose minority status was based on appearance-related concerns experienced more distress and displayed more interest in other minorities. Appearance and body-related minorities can readily feel other minorities’ negative and positive emotions and clearly imagine other minorities’ experiences. It is difficult for minorities, in terms of appearance, to hide their status from others. Thus, as they are always conscious of their minority status, they are highly aware of their differences, and the experiences this creates for them. Because they have more opportunities than other minorities to be aware of their minority status, and how others view them, this may make them more sensitive to the difficulties faced by other minorities. In daily life, it is easy to compare oneself with others. For minority group members, these comparisons increase awareness that they are a minority, leading to distress. Therefore, although it is not related to positive experiences as a minority, it is believed that the constant awareness of one’s minority status may lead to a more active interest in other minorities. Feeling and experiencing one’s own minority identity in this way creates greater interest in and support for other minorities, which builds inter-minority empathy. Therefore, if we can recognize ourselves as being both a minority and a majority at the same time, we can enhance our inter-minority empathy toward other minorities. Conclusion: Composition of Minority vs. Majority; the Way Ahead The basic principle that is often used to eliminate discrimination against sexual and gender-based minorities and others is that each of us must change our discriminatory attitudes and prejudices toward minorities and eliminate discriminatory words and actions. However, not all discrimination stems from discriminatory attitudes and prejudices. As for what can be done to change or eliminate discriminatory attitudes and prejudices against minorities, much has been said about “educating them.” However, the message people receive is often that “they are the people from minority groups and have experienced the pain of being discriminated and prejudiced against.” The training and education regarding LGBTQ+ mostly explain what LGBTQ+ means and introduce the current situations around the world and in their communities and the narratives surrounding those affected. Though research has also shown that these educational programs are effective in their own right, no matter how far we go with these kinds of education and trainings, we cannot escape the system of us and them, majority and minority, and supporters and supported. In other words, it always becomes “someone else’s problem.”

206  Makiko Kasai The author believes that inter-minority empathy is a way to escape this societal structure. There is a minority aspect and majority aspect within oneself, and the majority aspect is usually unaware of this but has many unrecognized benefits and privileges. This allows us to realize that we ourselves have become the oppressor, without even knowing it, and leads to a greater awareness of other minorities, and thereby to inter-minority empathy. I believe that this concept will eliminate the need to discuss and address the issues of various minorities separately, create relationships between various minorities, and also resolve inter-minority conflict (Shiraishi & Toda, 2022). It can also be expected to eliminate denunciation between minorities and create a change for the better in the relationship between minorities. Everyone is both a minority and a majority at the same time. References Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley. Asta, E. L., & Vacha-Hasse, T. (2013). Heterosexual ally development in counseling psychologists: Experiences, training, and advocacy. The Counseling Psychologist, 41, 493–529. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000012453174 Borgman, L. A. (2009). LGB allies and Christian identity: A qualitative exploration of resolving conflicts and integrating identities. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56, 508–520. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016691 Brouwer, M. A. R., & Boroş, S. (2010). The influence of intergroup contact and ethnocultural empathy on employees’ attitudes toward diversity. Cognition, Brain, Behavior: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 14, 243–260. Crenshaw, K. 1989. Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics (pp. 139–168). University of Chicago Legal Forum. Dentsu, Souken (2012). LGBT data 2012. Retrieved December 1, 2022, from http://dii. dentsu.jp/project/other/pdf/120701.pdf (2014.12.10) Drury, J., Carter, H., Cocking, C., Ntontis, E., Tekin Guven, S., & Amlôt, R. (2019). Facilitating collective psychosocial resilience in the public in emergencies: Twelve recommendations based on the social identity approach. Frontiers in Public Health, 7, 141. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2019.00141 Duhigg, J. M., Rostosky, S. S., Gray, B. E., & Wimsatt, M. K. (2010). Development of heterosexuals into sexual-minority allies: A qualitative exploration. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 7, 2–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-010-0005-2 Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Anastasio, P. A., Bachman, B. A., & Rust, M. C. (1993). The common ingroup identity model: Recategorization and the reduction of intergroup bias. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 4., pp. 1–26). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1080/14792779343000004 Gaertner, S. L., Rust, M. C., Dovidio, J. F., Bachman, B. A., & Anastasio, P. A. (1996). The contact hypothesis: The role of a common ingroup identity on reducing intergroup bias among majority and minority group members. In J. L. Nye & A. M. Brower (Eds.), What’s social about social cognition? (pp. 230–360). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483327648.n10

Inter-minority Empathy  207 Kasai, M. (2019). Inter-minority empathy: Factors related to “attitude of acknowledging sexual diversity.” Research Bulletin of Naruto University of Education, 34, 136–141. Kasai, M. (2023 submitted). Development of the inter-minority empathy scale. Kasai, M., & Odo, Y. (2018). Promoting attitudes of acknowledging sexual and gender diversity: Interviews with sexual majorities. Research Bulletin of Naruto University of Education, 33, 50–59. Lim, D., & DeSteno, D. (2016). Suffering and compassion: The links among adverse life experiences, empathy, compassion, and prosocial behavior. Emotion, 16, 175–182. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000144 McIntosh, P. (1989, July/August). White privilege: Unpacking the invisible knapsack. Peace and Freedom Magazine, pp.10–12. Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129(5), 674–697. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674 Meyer, I. H., & Northridge, M. E. (Eds.). (2007). The health of sexual minorities: Public health perspectives on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender populations. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-31334-4 Pascoe, E. A., & Richman. L. S. (2009). Perceived discrimination and health: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 135(4), 531–554. https://doi.org/10.1037/ a0016059 Ridley, C. R., & Lingle, D. W. (1996). Cultural empathy in multicultural counseling: A multidimentional process model. In P. B. Pedersen & J. G. Draguns (Eds.), Counseling across cultures (4th ed., pp. 21–46). SAGE Publications. Russell, G. M. (2011). Motives of heterosexual allies in collective action for equality. Journal of Social Issues, 67, 376–393. Russell, T. S., & Horn, S. S. (2017). Sexual orientation, gender identity, and schooling: The nexus of research, practice, and policy. Oxford University Press. https://doi. org/10.1093/med:psych/9780199387656.001.0001 Ryan, M., Broad, K. L., Walsh, C. F., & Nutter, K. L. (2013). Professional allies: The storying of allies to LGBTQ students on a college campus. Journal of Homosexuality, 60, 83–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2013.735942 Shiraishi, M., & Toda, Y. (2022). Inter-minority conflict in the Japanese context: Interweaving diversity through various mechanism. The Journal of Childcare and Education, 9, 35–50. https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/tfumhk/9/0/9_35/_pdf Strotzer, R. L. (2009) Straight Ally: Supportive attitudes toward lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals in college sample, Sex Roles, 60, 67–80. Wada, M. (1996). Adolescents’ attitudes toward homosexuality: Differences by sex and gender role identity, Social Psychological Research, 12, 9–19. Wang, Y., Davidson, M. M., Yakushko, F. O., Savoy, H. B., Tan, J. A., & Bleier, J. K. (2003). The scale of ethnocultural empathy: Development, validation, and reliability, Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50, 221–241. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.50.2.221 Washington, J., & Evans, N. J. (1991). Becoming an ally. In N. J. Evans & V. A. Wall (Eds.), Beyond tolerance: Gays, lesbians, and bisexuals on campus (pp.195–204). American College Personnel Association. Williams, D. R. (1999) Race, SES, and health: The added effects of racism and discrimination. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 896, 173–188.

208  Makiko Kasai Wirth, L. (1945). The problem of minority groups. The science of man in the world crisis, In Hacker, Helen Mayer. 1951. Women as a Minority Group. Retrieved December 1, 2022, from https://www.scribd.com/document/429626529/WIRTH-1945The-problem-of-minority-groups-pdf Wright, S. C., Aron, A., McLaughlin-Volpe, T., & Ropp, S. A. (1997). The extended contact effect: Knowledge of cross-group friendships and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 73–90. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.1.73

Index

Pages in italics refer to figures and pages in bold refer to tables. AGP 30 Anti-bullying initiatives 1, 119, 129 Anti-Discrimination Law 34, 60 Article 92–6 of the Military Criminal Act 66 Attitudes Towards Homosexuals Questionnaire (AHQ) 147 Buraku 188, 189, 191 Come out 5, 30, 38, 42–44, 47, 49, 52, 74, 77, 93, 96–98, 108 Confucianism 20, 38, 51, 52, 62, 88, 102, 173, 189 Cooperative marriage 40 Counseling camp 146 Cultural background 65, 72, 75, 176 Cultural forces 102, 105, 107 Cyberbullying 45, 73, 93, 119, 124–125, 130–133, 142, 144 Dowa 18–19, 189–189 Ethnocultural empathy 203, 207 Eugenic Protection Act 21 Family-oriented Identity 51 Gay affirmative psychology 1 Gender and Sexuality Alliances (GSA) 7 Gender dysphoria 1, 24–25, 79, 139, 167 Gender Equity Education 90–91, 94–95, 98–100 Gender Identity Disorder 18, 24, 32, 34–35, 72

Gender reassignment surgery 3, 8, 12, 14, 21 Gender Recognition 8, 9, 12, 14, 68, 101, 106, 108, 123, 151 Gharana 158–159 Guardianship by Conduct 40 Haram 194 Harassment 66–67, 73, 75, 90–91, 93–94, 99, 107–108, 112, 116, 147, 162, 171, 178, 184, 188 Heteronormative values 104 HIV 2, 18, 32, 41, 43, 59, 63, 71, 81, 83, 111, 145, 147, 155, 159, 160, 168, 182–183, 188 Homophobia 2, 21, 27, 35, 41, 51, 65, 69, 110, 114, 116–117, 152, 194 homosexual scriptures 157 Iban Geomyeol 77 IMC 186–187, 190, 191, 192–195 Inclusive Education 16, 81–82, 101, 131, 156, 165, 168, 187 Institutional support 114 Inter-minority conflict 186, 200, 206 Inter-minority empathy 15, 32–33, 198, 200, 202–207 International Day Against Homophobia (IDAHO) 2 internalized homophobia 27, 41, 51 Intersectionality 142, 145, 166, 171–173, 177, 181, 183–184, 186, 195, 199 Kinsey 5, 16

210 Index Left-behind Children 45 Legal criminalization 143 Legislation 9–10, 12, 14, 64, 73, 106, 112 Lost-Only-Child Family 37 Mak Nyah 139, 155 MEXT 20, 22–25, 28–30, 33 Microaggression 77–78, 177, 181 Minority groups 15, 35–39, 103–104, 106, 108, 119–121, 126, 140, 166, 171–172, 186–187, 189, 190, 195, 198–199, 201, 205, 208 Minority stress 81, 104–105, 113, 117, 154, 171–173, 176–177, 180–181, 183, 185, 198–199 Mobile application 130, 133 Multiple minority 7, 15, 171–172, 181, 186, 199 NALSA Judgment 160, 164, 166 National School Sexuality Education Standard 72, 80 Naz Foundation Judgment 168 Oppression 65, 104, 138–139, 143–144, 171–173, 177, 180–181, 200–201 Persons with disabilities 18, 120, 131, 161, 188 Professional Counseling Teachers 79, 82 Religion 19, 31, 38–39, 64, 72, 89–90, 95, 104, 120, 122, 133, 135–137, 140, 144–149, 158, 161, 173, 188, 189, 191, 193, 196, 198, 201, 204 Religious beliefs 38, 105, 138, 194 Same-Sex Marriage 3, 8, 11–12, 20, 22, 64, 67, 85, 87–88, 95, 97–98, 122–123, 151, 186, 188

School climate 7, 94, 100, 129, 177–179, 181, 184 School safety 17, 171, 177 Self-Identity 17, 51, 55, 60 Sex Education and Knowledge about Homosexuality Questionnaire (SEKHQ) 147 Sex Reassignment Surgery 1, 41, 42, 117, 160 Sexual prejudice 102–104, 108–109, 112, 115–116 Sexuality education 46, 49, 53–56, 58, 72, 80, 101, 106–108, 110, 113, 116, 127–128, 130–132 SGM (sexual and gender minority) 171–172, 177 SHIP 30–31 Stereotypes 50, 54–55, 80, 128, 156–157, 174, 176–177, 183–184 Students’ Human Rights Ordinance 73, 80 Syariah 135–139, 145, 151 Toilets 9–14, 15, 67, 79–80, 129, 160 Tongzhi 87, 92–94, 100, 103, 105, 111, 115–116 Transgender and Gender Nonconforming 48, 58 Transprejudice 103–105, 114, 116 Uniforms 8, 9–14, 24, 49, 79, 129, 143 United Nations 2, 4, 38, 40, 43–44, 53, 62, 72, 84, 118, 122, 157 Wee Project 79 World Health Organization (WHO) 3, 20, 122 Yogyakarta Principles 3, 157, 159