In their research, Rosario and her colleagues also found that two types of development occur: youth can maintain their sexual orientation over time from an earlier age, or they can more gradually change to another sexual orientation. For example, in their study, youth who identified as gay/lesbian and bisexual earlier in life were more likely to identify as only gay or lesbian when they were older, while those who exclusively identified as bisexual when younger were more likely to continue to identify as bisexual as they became older. Role of cultural diversity in identity development Aside from this general discussion of identity formation and development, LGB youth are not an otherwise uniform group. Cultural diversity is present within the whole of the human experience and its presence within the LGB youth population is no exception. The culturally diverse variables of gender, gender identity, race, and class are some additional factors affecting identity development that need to be considered. Ability, national origin, and religion are other such variables. It is well known that gender plays a highly significant part in the development of children and adolescents; females are expected to embody more feelings (be affect-oriented), whereas males are socialized to be more task-oriented. With LGB youth, the influence of gender on sexual orientation can play out such that it might be easier for girls to “come out” than boys because, for example, it is more acceptable in the United States to see women rather than men walking hand-in-hand and showing affection. In Rosario and colleagues’ 2006 study, female youth were more likely than male youth to identify as gay/lesbian. Race plays a very important role with regard to sexual orientation. Heterosexism is still pervasive in African- American and Latino communities. Youth of color may struggle to manage the stigma associated with holding two “minority” statuses – sexual orientation and race (Kuper, Coleman, & Mustanski, 2014). This is made more complicated by those who identify as “down low” (described earlier as a label that refers to an individual’s same-sex attraction and behavior without identification of being gay or bisexual; Kuper et al., 2014). Racism in the LGB community continues to exist (Balsam, Molina, Beadnell, Simoni, & Walters, 2011). The civil rights movement for LGB individuals has largely been a Caucasian endeavor. This does not mean that people of color have been completely ignored, but it is only in
recent years that LGB organizations have been making better efforts to include discussions of race. Finally, class is relevant, particularly in the context of access to supports. Kosciw, Greytak, and Diaz (2009) found that LGB youth who were poverty-stricken were less likely to have supportive school environments and more likely to encounter homophobia at school. Identity development is linked to social supports, and some of these social supports come at a cost. Because some LGB or questioning youth are concealing their identities from their families, they may be more self-reliant on their own funds to access social supports. For example, although smartphones and computers with Internet connections are commonplace, some individuals have limited or no access to such technologies due to their associated costs. Much social support for LGB youth is generated through Internet connections; therefore, not having full access to these potential supports might hinder identity development. To reduce the barriers of poverty and increase the numbers of youth who receive the benefits of social supports, many resources for LGB youth are purposely free of charge. However, even free supports have associated costs. Those youth with more means are more likely to have the finances to arrange transportation and pay other costs associated with attending LGB youth community meetings typically found in more urban regions. Those with fewer funds might again face difficulty obtaining this support and, even with means, this difficulty may be further compounded if these individuals live in rural areas (Leedy & Connolly, 2008). Identity development among LGB youth is a complex process. At its core, it is about an individual’s safe exploration, confusion and questioning, and commitment to an LGB sexual orientation. It is further complicated by the diversity of the youth involved based on gender, race, age, class, and other variables. The best practice for a practitioner is to have some familiarity with these developmental issues and processes, knowledge of the youth’s environmental context unique to his or her region (e.g., different school districts’ responses to LGB students), and associated supportive resources for LGB youth in the region. As always, the practitioner needs to begin with the client’s identification of goals he or she would like to achieve.
CONTEMPORARY CHALLENGES
Coming out Impact on youth
difficult to admit to themselves an LGB orientation. For example, the role of religion is complex and can present a very strong viewpoint that nonheterosexual orientation is immoral. However, in recent years, many religions and denominations have developed organizational subentities that are affirming of LGB individuals. Additionally, the role of family members can also be complex, and the degree to which a youth feels comfortable to come out is based in part on the family’s acceptance of the LGB sexual orientation. Sometimes youth will actually come out to relatives who are not their parents, saving the perceived most- difficult disclosure for last. Family response The response of the family, particularly the parents, is typically so central to a youth’s identity development that it can be a common issue when LGB or questioning youth and their families have family therapy, especially upon the youth’s coming out. Ideally, parents (or adult caregivers) showcase their unconditional love for their children and instantly embrace their child, regardless of any sexual orientation. Although this does occur sometimes and should be celebrated, it is common for even supportive parents and family members to experience a grieving process. Ironically, a youth’s coming out to parents commonly serves as a forced catalyst to the family’s own coming out process (their public acknowledgment that they have an LGB family member) and the sometimes sudden onset of grief in particular (Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays
As described earlier, coming out refers to the process by which an individual consciously discloses to herself or himself, and to others, the identification that he or she is lesbian, bisexual, or gay. (Coming out can also refer to transgender acceptance.) Research shows that youth are coming out at younger ages, usually in the early-to mid- teen years. This is younger than in earlier cohorts and the trend shows that the age of coming out continues to get younger over time (Drasin et al., 2008). This occurs for a variety of reasons. The exponential growth in the use of the Internet and social networking has created instantaneous groups in which youth can build community. In- person communities, whether Gay/Straight Alliances (GSAs) in school and/or youth support groups affiliated with social service or mental health agencies are also on the rise. The increased presence of contemporary adult role models who are public about their identity and/or relationships, including NFL football player Michael Sam, U.S. Senator Tammy Baldwin, actors Neil Patrick Harris and Jodie Foster, and other celebrities, provide more positive images of adults who can be successful, adjusted, and open about being LGB. In addition, state regulations related to marriage equality have widened the national dialogue concerning discrimination based on sexual orientation in the media, schools, and communities. Nevertheless, certain factors also contribute to keeping youth in the closet or closeted – that is, forced to hide or even making it
Page 5
Book Code: PYCA1423
EliteLearning.com/Psychology
Powered by FlippingBook