Diversité sexuelle et constructions de genre

Chapitre 3 : A Contextual Model of Victimization of Sexual-Minority Youth

3 A Contextual Model of Victimization of Sexual-minority youth Hilary A. Rose 1. A Contextual Model of Victimization of Sexual-minority youth As most large, representative, school-based studies of victimization in sexual-minority youth seem to be atheoretical, the purpose of this chapter is to present a theoretical framework for research about victimization in sexual-minority youth. As a theorist, I believe it is important to situate data in the context of theory, whether it be grand theory or grounded theory; there have been many calls for more explicit use of theory in several social science fields (e.g., family studies, human sexuality). In addition to the large, school-based studies, there are many other studies of sexual minority victimization (e.g., studies using convenience samples, or qualitative studies), but these are not the primary focus of this chapter (in part because they are not necessarily atheoretical). Nevertheless, because the literature on victimization in sexual-minority youth is small (and even smaller if one highlights subgroups such as Canadian sexual-minority c h a p i t r e 76 Diversité sexuelle et constructions de genre youth, or sexual-minority youth of colour), references will be made to these studies as well. Related studies (e.g., victimization in youth in general) will be included where appropriate. There is little consensus with respect to terminology about sexual minorities (e.g., Sausa, 2005; Woodruffe, 2008). There are some who suggest that labels indicating sexual or gender identity are no longer meaningful given the fluidity of gender and sexual expression that exists over the lifespan (e.g., Diamond, 2003; Sausa, 2005; Savin-Williams, 2005). Nevertheless, research consistently shows that sexual-minority youth (i.e., lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer) are more likely than others to be victimized. I use the term sexual-minority youth to encompass those whose gender/sexual expression or identity is different from the majority; the abbreviation LGBTQ is also used. Using a blanket term, however, runs the risk of ignoring differences that exist among sexual-minority youth (e.g., Daley, Solomon, Newman, and Mishna, 2007; Woodruffe, 2008); victimization can vary as a function of gender, ethnicity, and developmental status. We also know that youth’s experience of victimization will be affected by multiple identities, or the intersection of identities (e.g., Daley et al., 2007; Diamond and Butterworth, 2008; Morrison, 2008). Transgender youth in particular are affected by the intersection of sexism and heterosexism (Human Rights Watch, 2001). Gender differences occur at multiple biological and social levels (e.g., chromosomal, anatomical, assigned, etc.), and any one level may be incongruous with another (Hoyenga and Hoyenga, 1993). For example, gender expression or gender identity may not match anatomical gender. An anatomical male might express feminine behaviour, or vice versa; this incongruous expression of gender is known as gender atypicality. Similarly; an anatomical female might identify as a male, just as an anatomical male might identity as a female; this incongruous identification is known as transgender. These gender incongruities may be distinct from sexual orien­ tation; for example, a transgender female (MTF, or male to female) may or may not identify as gay (e.g., Human Rights Watch, 2001; Sausa, 2005). Because the developmental literature often addresses gender atypicality (i.e., behaviour) separately from transgenderism (i.e., identity), this distinction will be maintained here when necessary. For the most part, I use the generic term victimization to refer to a range of harmful behaviours directed at others such as teasing, verbal harassment , sexual harassment, social exclusion, spreading rumours, threatening, A contextual model of victimization of sexual-minority youth 77 physical abuse, and sexual abuse. I tend to use the terms victimization and bullying interchangeably, using Olweus’s definition (i.e., repeated exposure to negative actions on the part of others that one cannot defend oneself against; Olweus, 1993), although in general the term bullying seems to be used in studies of younger children, and the term victimization seems to be used in studies of youth and adults. Given the contextual model presented here, victimization does not refer exclusively to peer victimization, but also to victimization on the part of family members, teachers, and society as a whole. In some cases, the term violence is used, referring to fighting, for example, which may or may not stem from victimization (i.e., fighting as a defensive strategy) as some researchers have suggested (e.g., Kim, Leventhal, Koh, Hubbard, and...