Inclusive and Supportive Education Congress
International
Special Education Conference
Inclusion: Celebrating Diversity?
1st - 4th August 2005. Glasgow, Scotland
about the conference
programme
registration
accommodation
contact
|
Inclusive and Supportive Education Congress 1st - 4th August 2005. Glasgow, Scotland |
home about the conference programme registration accommodation contact |
Prof Millie Gore
Midwestern State University, Wichita Falls, Texas USA
Millie.gore@mwsu.edu
Adolescents with disabilities are marginalized among their peers; adolescents who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, or questioning (GLBTQ) are likewise marginalized. However, students who both 1) have disabilities and 2) are also members of sexual minorities are exponentially marginalized: they are those cast out even by other outcasts (Thompson, Bryson, & Castell, 2001).
Not only are GLBTQ students with disabilities exponentially marginalized, many of them are in dire trouble. In their award-winning book, Lesbian & Gay Youth: Care and Counselling, Ryan and Futterman (1998) noted that GLBTQ students with disabilities encounter the barriers faced by all adolescents with disabilities who try to attain independence and self-actualization, but find that those problems are complicated by the problems faced by sexual minority adolescents who need to “understand and explore their sexuality, to struggle with coming out, to find supportive peers and adults, and to establish intimate relationships. But the denial and invisibility experienced by non-disabled lesbian and gay youth is amplified for them, and access to information about sexual orientation and intimacy is further restricted” (p. 51).
The results for many such students are disastrous. For example, in the United States of America, approximately a third of all adolescent suicides are reported to be GLBTQ youth. The numbers may be higher, because many youth who commit suicide may be closeted GLBTQ persons whose sexual identity is unknown to the persons filing reports. Approximately half of self-identified GLBTQ youth attempt suicide repeatedly. In addition, approximately a quarter of all homeless youth in the U. S. are reported to be GLBTQ (Gibson, 1989).
Their needs are immense, yet GLBTQ youth face complex barriers to receiving the educational and mental health support that they need in both U. S. school systems and in U. S. society in general (National Association of School Psychologists, 2004).
Inclusive educators have an ethical mandate to support this most vulnerable group of students, which for brevity I will call SMSD (Sexual Minority Students with Disabilities), and I propose using Bronfenbrenner’s Bioecological Theory of Human Development as a model by which to provide such support. Bronfenbrenner’s first three propositions are especially salient to a discussion of supporting SMSD.
The first proposition of Bronfenbrenner’s (2001) model is that experience is subjective. He called experience the realm of emotionally charged subjectivity: fears and hopes, beliefs and doubts, anticipations and forebodings, curiosity and boredom, love and hate. Inclusive educators remember that regardless of how an event appears to them, the SMSD views the event from a different phenomenological perspective. An event that appears neutral to the educator may appear threatening to the SMSD. Conversely, an event that appears salient to the educator may be overlooked by the SMSD.
Bronfenbrenner’s second proposition is that development takes place during the daily mundane interactions that occur repeatedly over time. He called these interactions proximal processes, and noted that they are the “primary engines of development” (Bronfenbrenner, 2005, p. 6). This suggests that promoting healthy development of the SMSD is not a “one shot” approach, but a protracted process that must be continuously engaged.
Bronfenbrenner’s third proposition is sometimes called the PPCT proposition. PPCT stands for process, person, context, and time. Bronfenbrenner wrote,
The form, power, content, and direction of the proximal processes producing development vary systematically as a joint function of the characteristics of the developing person (including genetic inheritance); of the environment -both immediate and more remote- in which the processes are taking place; of the nature of the developmental outcomes under consideration; and of the continuities and changes occurring in the environment over time, through the life course, and during the historical period in which the person has lived (Bronfenbrenner, 2005, p. 6-7).
In a discussion of supporting SMSD, the third proposition highlights the unique biological and/or psychological characteristics of the person who is both a member of a sexual minority and who has a disability. The proposition emphasizes the anti-gay environment that exists in much of the world, as well as the marginalization of people with disabilities. In addition, the proposition helps the inclusive educator focus on the range of developmental outcomes she/he must address for SMSD, especially the outcome of healthy identity development as a person with a disability who is a member of a sexual minority. Finally, the proposition points out not only the importance of the era in which the SMSD lives, but also the criticality of the adolescent period, and more importantly, the time of the adolescent’s first stirrings of sexuality and the coming out process.
Bronfenbrenner’s model identifies four systems: the microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, and macrosystem. The inclusive educator focuses on supporting SMSD through interventions at the microsystem, mesosystem, and macrosystem levels.
Bronfenbrenner (1992) defined a microsystems as “a pattern of activities, roles, and interpersonal relations experienced by the developing person in a given setting with particular physical and material features and containing other persons with distinctive characteristics of temperament, personality, and systems of belief” (cited in Bronfenbrenner, 2005, p. 148).
He defined a mesosystem as comprising “the linkages and processes taking place between two or more settings containing the developing person (e.g., the relations between home and school, school and workplace). In other words, a mesosystem is a system of microsystems” (Bronfenbrenner, 2005, p. 148).
He defined exosystem as encompassing “the linkages and processes taking place between two or more settings, at least one of which does not ordinarily contain the developing person, but in which events occur that influence processes within the immediate setting that does contain that person [e.g., for a child, the relation between the home and the parent’s workplace; for a parent, the relation between the school and the neighborhood group” (Bronfenbrenner, 2005, p. 148).
He defined the macrosystem as consisting of “the overarching pattern of micro-, meso-, and exosystems characteristic of a given culture, subculture, or other broader social context, with particular reference to the developmentally instigative belief systems, resources, hazards, lifestyles, opportunity structures, life course options, and patterns of social interchange that are embedded in each of these systems. The macrosystem may be thought of as a societal blueprint for a particular culture, subculture, or other broader social context” (Bronfenbrenner, 2005, pr. 148-149).
Contextualizing the needs of the SMSD from the perspective of Bronfenbrenner’s Bioecological Systems Model allows the inclusive educator to provide needed support.
Including and Supporting SMSD
Microsystems Support
At the microsystems level, SMSD need support in a vast number of areas. They need activities, roles, and relationships (proximal processes) with persons whose temperament, personality, and systems of belief are supportive of the sexual minority development of persons who are SMSD; few SMSD find themselves in such microsystems. Within those microsystems, SMSD need information, social support, mental health support, and health care that is rarely available to them (Ryan & Futterman, 1998).
In thinking about the informational needs of SMSD, the inclusive educator considers the importance of the cultural context.
Many parents try to provide helpful information about sexuality when their adolescents appear to become interested in the opposite sex; few parents are pleased when their adolescents show interest in same-sex partners, and not only fail to provide helpful information, but may openly reject their child. While all youth need information about sex, students who are members of sexual minorities have great fears of being discovered in their quest for information. Their attempt to learn needed information is fraught with danger. First, like non-disabled GLBTQ youth, SMSD need information from sympathetic persons and sources about sex and their sexuality. But in contrast to their non-disabled peers, the ability of SMSD to access information on computers, in libraries, or from sympathetic persons may be severely limited.
Providing individualized instruction. Inclusive educators can identify ways to provide informational support consistent with the needs of each student. For example, informational support for SMSD whose disabilities are cognitive requires explicitness and concreteness, with visual as well as auditory aspects, offered repeatedly and reviewed often due to processing and memory deficits. Inclusive educators will also ask SMSD with cognitive disabilities to explain back what they have learned, so that the educator will not leave the teaching act with the misconception that the student fully understands the information when s/he does not. Providing group instruction. Even more than their straight peers, SMSD may be more comfortable seeking sexuality information in a group setting than one-on-one with a teacher. The special educator who includes information on homosexuality as a natural part of a larger program of sexuality education can meet many of the needs of SMSD youth who are embarrassed to talk to the teacher individually. The educator can use both formal sexuality education classes and informal teachable moments with groups of students or individuals to address issues that educate students about sexuality in general, and homosexuality/bisexuality/transgendered issues in particular. The key is making discussions of sexuality part of the ongoing proximal processes of the special education class.
Providing school library resources. Few public school libraries provide adequate information about sexual minority issues. Some school libraries that do have books about homosexuality have reported that school administrators have removed such books from their libraries under pressure from the community (Human Rights Watch, 2001). Inclusive educators acknowledge the importance of cultural context, yet lobby their librarians and school administrators to include books about all subjects, including sexuality and homosexuality, on their shelves.
In addition to informational needs related to development are the social needs of SMSD. Supporting a student’s social needs highlights the importance of subjectivity of the experience. What another student intends as a socially neutral or even a positive social contact may be experienced by the SMSD as a rejection. Conversely, what the SMSD may perceive as a welcome response to her/his social bid may actually be meant as a rejection by the other party. Supporting social needs also highlights the importance of context. Local, regional, and national cultures vary enormously in their attitudes toward sexual minority.
Modelling acceptance. Whether straight or gay, inclusive educators model their own positive attitudes toward SMSD youth in the proximal processes of their daily school life. For example, inclusive educators do not make the presumption of heterosexuality. Instead of asking a male student, “Do you have a girlfriend?” or a female student, “Do you have a boyfriend?” the inclusive educator asks, “Are you seeing anyone?” (Council for Exceptional Children, 2001). They validate, support, and normalize their GLBTQ students’ feelings about their sexuality. They prominently display books on their shelves by gay authors and include posters of prominent gay figures among their posters of heterosexual persons (National Association of School Psychologists, 2004).
A critical aspect of modelling acceptance is intervening in harassment regardless of the status of the source of the harassment, whether the harasser is a student, a staff member, another teacher, or an administrator ( National Association of School Psychologists , 2004). Human Rights Watch (2001) noted that teachers intervene in gender-based verbal harassment only 3% of the time. The watch-dog organization, People for the American Way (1999), noted that a number of school districts have refused to include sexual orientation to the list of groups protected from harassment. They noted that many teachers “look the other way” when GLBTQ students are attacked, and that some teachers even blame the victim, stating that the victim is to blame because she or he appears to be gay or lesbian. In 1998, People for the American Way stated that teachers themselves have verbally attacked students because of their sexual orientation.
Sexual minority students have also reported that physical attacks and threats of physical attacks are permitted by faculty, staff, and administration (Human Rights Watch, 2001; People for the American Way, 1998, 1999). Specific cases include a student who was beaten by eight homophobic students (watched by over 30 others) to the point in which he lost 80% of hearing in one ear. The district did not intervene. Other cases involved a male student who was beaten to the point of requiring hospitalisation, and a female student who had death threats left in her locker, both without intervention from the district (People for the American Way, 1999).
Some sexual minority educators model self-acceptance by making their minority status known; these persons constitute critical role models for sexual minority students. However, the majority of sexual minority educators stay closeted for the sake of safety (Woods & Harbeck, 1992). They fear running the risk of prejudice, discrimination, harassment, and “accusations that they are child molesters or recruiters to an immoral lifestyle” (Griffin, p. 167).
Supporting relationships with peers . Because many students with disabilities are embedded within a special education microsystem of other students with disabilities, their heterosexual peers may be especially nonsupportive: McCabe and Schreck (1992) found that the strongest sexual prohibition in the developmental disabilities community was against homosexuality. Inclusive educators provide support to SMSD by addressing and prohibiting discrimination and harassment within their classrooms through proximal processes.
One effective way to reduce discrimination and harassment within classrooms, and thus support relationships with peers, is to use activities provided by the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Educators’ Network (GLSEN) at glsen.org. The GLSEN Lunchbox (approximately $100 US) provides all the materials required to produce comprehensive, interesting, and interactive anti-bias workshops for students (or faculty and staff) lasting from one hour to two days.
Finding a social network of GLBTQ youth who will accept the SMSD may be difficult. Because of the obsession with bodily perfection that is part of the greater gay male community, SMSD often find themselves rejected by the very community in which they desperately desire to be accepted (Corbett, 1994), and are generally only tolerated in the greater lesbian community (Abberley, 1994). These networks may remain inaccessible to SMSD. Strategies addressing discrimination against persons with disabilities in the greater sexual minority community may be required in order to help SMSD gain access. Such strategies may include the inclusive educator’s offering to present a talk on the subject at meetings of gay student and gay community groups. Understanding stigmatisation, many sexual minority persons may be more embracing of their disabled peers once their consciousness is raised about the issue. Inclusive educators also work one-on-one with nondisabled sexual minority students to encourage them to support their SMSD peers.
Starting gay-straight alliances . Inclusive educators may wish to start gay-straight alliances (GSAs) or sexual minority support groups at their schools. By serving as an organisation sponsor, the inclusive educator is in an excellent position to model inclusiveness toward the students with disabilities, as well as to address the exclusion of such students by the non-disabled members. School psychologists are ideal co-sponsors, because they are equipped to develop, implement, and evaluate such groups ( National Association of School Psychologists , 2004).
Starting SMSD support groups. In addition, Thompson, Bryson, and de Castell (2001) called for support groups specifically for SMSD. They stated that inclusive educators “need to create safe-spaces, such as support groups for LGB people with developmental disabilities. These groups would allow people to process their experiences, know that they are not alone, and access information concretely” (p. 63).
Integrating social support in academics. Inclusive educators provide social support of SMSD through proximal processes throughout the academic setting. For example, in literature classes, inclusive educators include in their curricula young adult novels in which the protagonists are members of sexual minorities (Crockett, 1995). They include works by known sexual minority persons in literature and the arts. They naturally integrate information about homosexual persons and issues in history lessons and current events. In sociology classes, they delve into the phenomenon of discrimination and hate-based violence. Inclusive educators also invite sexual minority persons to be speakers on career days and at other community-related events. In addition, they address sexual minority issues in health education classes (National Association of School Psychologists, 2004). The National Association of School Psychologists, (2004) explained that by including such information in the curriculum, inclusive educators reduce the isolation experienced by GLBT, and by extension, SMSD.
While inclusive educators recognize that they are not counsellors or psychologists, they do have a variety of roles in providing for the mental health needs of SMSD.
Supporting to manage stigmatisation Ryan and Futterman (1998) noted that unlike their heterosexual peers, GLBTQ youth “are the only social minority who must learn to manage a stigmatized identity without active support and modelling from parents and family” (p. 9). Straight adolescents from stigmatized groups receive support from and learn from parents and family how to cope with hostility from society. Not so GLBTQ youth. Learning to manage stigmatisation without the assistance of parents and family will be even more difficult for SMSD than from their nondisabled peers. Inclusive teachers will provide for ongoing support and for ongoing social skills training to help SMSD learn to manage stigmatisation, while understanding that the student’s subjective experience of the stigmatisation may be different from the teacher’s perception.
Providing a safe space. Because SMSD are in need of mental health support, inclusive educators use a variety of strategies to demonstrate to closeted students that they are a safe person with whom to talk. Many inclusive educators have a “Safe Space” sign on their doors. This sticker, available from the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Educators’ Network (GLSEN.org), is a pink upside-down triangle on a black background with the works “Safe Space.” Because the pink triangle is well-known as a symbol of lesbian and gay persons, many closeted SMSD will be able to identify the teacher as a possible source of support. In addition, many inclusive educators have a poster or other emblem of inclusiveness in their classrooms that will signify to students that help and advice are available (National Association of School Psychologists, 2004)..
A critical caveat is that the inclusive educator never encourages a closeted sexual minority student to come out to her/his parents. In the past, naïve inclusive educators sometimes assured sexual minority students that their parents would accept and support their sexual orientation. Such advice has often been catastrophic, with many adolescents verbally or physically abused, or even evicted from their homes because of their disclosure (Rivers & D’Augelli 2001).
Making referrals . The inclusive educator knows her/his limits as far as offering mental health services, because many of the mental health issues faced by SMSD are beyond the scope of the classroom teacher. She/he will then make referrals to the school counsellor or school psychologist. Ensuring that the school counsellor is supportive of and comfortable counselling with sexual minority students may be an issue (National Association of School Psychologists, 2004) and should be explored in advance to making referrals. The school counsellor may prefer to refer the sexual minority student to another helping professional if she/he is not comfortable in dealing with the student. Orzek (1989) cautioned that sexual minority persons seeking mental health support too often face a “second trauma” when they reveal themselves to counsellors who are homophobic and/or heterosexist.
Providing for Health Care
As the inclusive educator recognises that she/he is neither a counsellor nor a therapist, she/he also recognises that she/he is not a health care provider. However, as within the mental health domain, the inclusive educator plays a role in the health care of SMSD.
Collaborating with the school nurse. In the health care arena, the inclusive educator works with the school nurse to ensure that SMSD receive the health care that they need. While health care related to sexuality is a prime concern, SMSD may also require health care in a variety of areas, including trauma and sexual assault (American Academy of Pediatrics, 1988), substance abuse (Remafedi, 1987), and eating disorders (Herzog, et. al., 1984).
The Society for Adolescent Medicine, in a 1991 position paper on reproductive health care for adolescents, targeted students with disabilities as being especially in need of reproductive health care. Students with disabilities who are also members of sexual minorities are especially in need of reproductive health care because of the increased risks to which sexual minority youth are exposed.
Among all adolescents, sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) are second only to upper respiratory infections in frequency of diagnosis (Zenilman (1988). Although STDs are far more common among gay males, they also occur frequently among lesbians who have been sexually active with men, as the research shows most lesbians to have been (Ryan & Futterman, 1998). (STDs are far less common among exclusively lesbian women, although they have been reported.) Because SMSD may be less likely to recognize the symptoms of STDs, or may be less likely to recognize that they need treatment, the inclusive educator includes explicit education about the symptoms of STDs and reviews it often; she/he immediately makes referrals to the school nurse whenever the presence of an STD is suspected.
Mesosystem Support
The mesosystem refers to the relations between microsystems. In this discussion, each context in which the student interacts within the school is considered a microsystem. In this domain, the inclusive educator works to facilitate relations among GSAs or SMSD support groups and other student groups. She/he works with other teachers to promote the inclusion of gay-friendly information in content classes. She/he seeks to promote collaboration between the school librarian and sexual minority youth as books are selected for purchase. She/he also works with the school counsellor and the nurse to make referrals and ensure that students are receiving the help that they need.
In addition, the inclusive educator networks with other teachers and with school leadership to develop and enforce school policies that eliminate discrimination, hate speech, and violence perpetrated by students, staff, or faculty, against sexual minority students.
In order to accomplish this, the inclusive educator first works to raise consciousness and educate faculty and staff about the discrimination and harassment faced by sexual minority youth. Sexual minority students within the school can be part of such consciousness-raising by writing articles for the school paper (anonymously if desired), talking to administration, or addressing faculty meetings about their own experiences.
Then the inclusive educator works to reduce the bias of homophobic faculty and staff. Collaborating with the school counsellor or psychologist and other sympathetic persons is critical, as is having the support of administration. As noted above, the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Educators’ Network (GLSEN) has materials (approximately $100 US) that are designed to help the inclusive educator produce comprehensive, interesting, interactive workshops to effect these ends; the materials allow the development of workshops ranging from one hour to two days. The materials can be ordered at www.glsen.org.
Outside the school, the inclusive educator is especially attentive to the needs of the families of SMSD. The inclusive educator neither outs, nor encourages the SMSD to out themselves to their families. However if the SMSD is out, chooses to out her/himself, or if she/he is outed unintentionally, the inclusive educator provides support to the family as needed. This may include referral to the school counsellor or to family support groups, such as Parents, Friends, and Families of Lesbians and Gays (www.pflag.org).
In general, a multidisciplinary approach that permeates the mesosystem will be the most successful in creating cultural contexts that support the development of GLBTQ (Johnson & Johnson, 2000), and by extension, SMSD youth.
Macrosystem Support
Within the macrosystem, the inclusive educator’s role is to engage in the battle against myths regarding both disability and homosexuality. One important disability myth to attack is that persons with disabilities are asexual, and that persons with developmental disabilities are either asexual children or hypersexed persons with uncontrollable desires (Thompson, Bryson, & De Castell, 2001). Inclusive educators battle those myths through educational programs, advocacy, and informal conversations when the topic arises.
For example, the inclusive educator begins talking with families about their adolescent’s blossoming sexuality when they begin transition planning at the age of 14 to prepare the student for adult life. While they never out students, inclusive educators naturally discuss sexual development and needs in non-heterosexist ways, such as saying to the student in the transition planning meeting, “What kinds of activities would you be interested in attending when you start dating someone?” instead of saying “dating girls” to a male student, or “dating boys” to a female student.
Other myths to dispel are those involving homosexuality (Thompson, Bryson, & De Castell, 2001). These include the myths that gay people recruit straight people to become gay, and that educating young people who are straight about homosexuality will turn them gay (McAllan & Ditillo, 1994).
Bronfenbrenner’s Bioecological Systems Theory provides a framework to assist the inclusive educator in supporting students with disabilities who are members of sexual minorities. Within the microsystem, the inclusive educator works to provide information, social support, mental health support and referrals, and referrals for health support.
Developing a multisystemic approach to supporting SMSD students is vital, and Bronfenbrenner’s conceptualization of the mesosystem provides a way to develop such an approach. Within the mesosystem, she/he facilitates connections among the microsystems to support the student both directly and indirectly through reducing bias among the staff.
Finally, the inclusive educator works to change the macrosystem through an organized effort to combat myths about disability and homosexuality, and thus reduce both homosexual and disability bias.
References
Abberley, P. (1987). The concept of oppression and the development of a social theory of disability. Disability, Handicap, & Society, 2, 5-19.
American Academy of Pediatrics (1988). Rape and the adolescent. Pediatrics, 81, 595.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1992). Ecological systems theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Six theories of child development: Revised formulations and current issues (pp. 187-249). London: Jessica Kingsley.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (2001). The bioecological theory of human development. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioural sciences (Vol. 10, pp. 6963-6970). New York: Elsevier.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (2005). Making human beings human: Bioecological perspectives on human development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Corbett, J. (1994). A proud label: Exploring the relationship between disability politics and gay pride. Disability & Society, 9, 343-357.
Crockett, L. (1995). Entering the mainstream: Fiction about gay and lesbian teens. School Library Journal, 41 (2), 32-33.
Council for Exceptional Children (2001). Making schools safe for gay and lesbian students. CEC Today, 8 (2), 7-8.
Gibson, P. (1989). Gay male and lesbian youth suicide. In G. Remafedi (Ed.), Death by denial: Studies of suicide in gay and lesbian teenagers (pp. 15-69). Boston: Alyson Publications.
Griffin, P. (1992). From hiding out to coming out: Empowering gay and lesbian educators. In K. E. Harbeck (Ed. ), Coming out of the classroom closet: Gay and lesbian students, teachers and curricula (pp.167-196). New York: Harrington Park Press.
Herzog, D. B., Norman, D. K., Gordon, C., & Pepose, M. (1984). Sexual conflict and eating disorders in 27 males. American Journal of Psychiatry, 141, 989.
Human Rights Watch (2001), Hatred in the hallways: Violence and discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender students in U. S. schools. New York: Human Rights Watch.
Johnson, C. C., & Johnson, K. A. (2000). High-risk behavior among gay adolescents: Implications for treatment and support. Adolescence, 35, 619-637.
Lipkin, A. (1995). The case for a gay and lesbian curriculum. . In G. Unks (Ed.), The gay teen: Educational practice and theory for lesbian, gay, and bisexual adolescents (pp. 31-52). New York: Routledge.
McAllen, L. & Ditillo, D. (1994). Addressing the needs of lesbian and gay clients with disabilities. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 25 (1), 26-35.
McCabe, M. & Schreck, A. (1992). Before sex education: An evaluation of the sexual knowledge, experience, feelings and needs of people with mild intellectual disabilities. Australia and New Zealand Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 16, 75-82.
National Association of School Psychologists (2004). Position statement on sexual minority youth. http://www.National Association of School Psychologistsonline.org/information/pospaper_glb.html
Orzek A. M. (1988). The lesbian victim of sexual assault: Special considerations for the mental health professional. Women and Therapy, 8, 107-117.
People for the American Way (1998). Hostile climate: Report on anti-gay activity: 1998 edition. Washington D. C.: People for the American Way Foundation.
People for the American Way (1999). Hostile climate: Report on anti-gay activity: 1999 edition. Washington D. C.: People for the American Way Foundation.
Remafedi, G. (1987). Adolescent homosexuality: Psychosocial and medication implications. Pediatrics, 79, 331.
Rivers, I., & D’Augelli, A. R. (2001). The victimization of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths. In Anthony R. D’Augelli and Charlotte J. Patterson (Eds.) Lesbian, gay, and bisexual identities and youth: Psychological perspectives (pp. 199-223). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ryan, C. & Futterman, D. (1998). Lesbian and gay youth: Care and counseling. New York: Columbia University Press.
The Society for Adolescent Medicine (1991). Position statements on reproductive health care for adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 12, 657.
Thompson, S. A., Bryson, M. & de Castell, S. (2001). Prospects for identity formation for lesbian, gay or bisexual persons with developmental disabilities. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 48 (1). Retrieved November, 2004 from Academic Search Premier.
Woods, S. E., & Harbeck, K. M. (1992). Living in two worlds: The identity management strategies used by lesbian physical educators. In Karen E. Harbeck (Ed.), Coming out of the classroom closet: Gay and lesbian students, teachers and curricula (pp.141-166). New York: Harrington Park Press.
Zenilman, J. (1988). Sexually transmitted diseases in homosexual adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 9, 129.
home . about the conference . programme . registration . accommodation . contact
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |