Journal of LGBT Youth

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t792306904

Achieving Real Equality: A Work in Progress for LGBT Youth in Spain

Jos Ignacio Pichardo Galn a; Beln Molinuevo Puras b; Robin L. Riley c a Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain b COGAM: The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Association of Madrid, Madrid, Spain c Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York, USA Online Publication Date: 01 April 2009

To cite this Article Galn, Jos Ignacio Pichardo, Puras, Beln Molinuevo and Riley, Robin L.(2009)'Achieving Real Equality: A Work in

Progress for LGBT Youth in Spain',Journal of LGBT Youth,6:2,272 287

To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/19361650902897581 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19361650902897581

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Journal of LGBT Youth, 6:272287, 2009 Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1936-1653 print / 1936-1661 online DOI: 10.1080/19361650902897581

Achieving Real Equality: A Work in Progress for LGBT Youth in Spain

IGNACIO PICHARDO GALAN JOSE
Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain

MOLINUEVO PURAS BELEN

COGAM: The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Association of Madrid, Madrid, Spain

ROBIN L. RILEY
Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York, USA

Although lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people have achieved a great level of legal equality in Spain, social equality is still to come, especially for adolescents. This article reports results from three different studies. The rst, in 2005, using a multidisciplinary approach, conrmed that homophobia is present in secondary schools in Madrid. The second, in 2006, was a small survey of LGBT teenagers on-line postings and internet interviews; and the third, conducted in 2007, analyzed more than 4500 questionnaires completed by high school student in two Spanish towns. Both studies showed that most Spanish teenagers still consider schools not a safe place for LGBT people. KEYWORDS Adolescents, high school, homophobia, school safety, sexual diversity, Spain Is it safe to be lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender in a Spanish high school? According to several studies conducted by Madrids LGBT Association and the Spanish National LGBT Federation (COGAM/FELGTB) with the support of the Universidad Autonoma de Madrid, the answer is no. While there are certainly students who identify as L, G, B or T in the Spanish educational system, there is inadequate support for these students in school. The curriculum
Received 15 January 2007; revised 16 May 2008; accepted 29 July 2008. Address correspondence to Jos e Ignacio Pichardo Gal an, Department of Antropolog a Social, Fac. Ciencias Pol ticas y Sociologia, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Campus de E-mail: joseignacio.pichardo@cps.ucm.es Somosaguas, 28223 Pozuelode Alarcon. 272

LGBT Youth in Spain

273

is not supportive of their lives, and these students feel only varying degrees of safety both in school and in their larger communities. These results are consistent with studies done in other European countries (Herbigniaux & Laot, 2007; Tak acs, 2006). Spain has experienced important social transformations at the end of the 20th Century. During the dictatorship of Franco (19361975), defying heteronormativity in Spain meant persecution, exile, and even murder (Arnalte, 2003; Olmeda, 2004). The dictatorial regime maintained a morality based on National-Catholicism.1 After Francos death in 1975, Spanish society began to liberalize standards for heterosexuals. Civil marriages were once more permitted between heterosexual partners and attitudes towards sex outside marriage were more socially accepted (Eisenberg, 1999). Sex between same sex people, however, remained strongly stigmatized for about two more decades.2 Since the changes that took place right after the transition to democracy (in the 1980 s), Spain has experienced a second wave of legal adjustment that has updated its legal system to reect the new social reality. During the late 1990s and the early 2000s registered same-sex partnerships were legalized in 12 of Spains 17 autonomous regions. Then, most signicantly, gay marriage was legalized nationally in 2005. This government decision would not have been possible without a signicant evolution in Spanish public opinion.3 Rapid change, however, did not happen without dissent. From the 1980s into the 2000s, the main resistance to change has come from the Roman Catholic Church, which has opposed any alternative to the traditional notion of heterosexual two-parent families. Changes in public opinion, despite the resistance of the Church, may reect a social detachment from Catholic morality in Spanish society, at least regarding issues of sexuality and family. Spaniards may relate Catholic notions on the family with the past and, by extension, to dictatorship. Nevertheless, the Catholic hierarchy still has a strong hold on Spains educational system, where there are public and private schools. Most private schools are nanced by the state and managed by the Catholic Church. Catholicism is present in the public schools, too, since the national government pays for professionals who teach Catholic religion, a course that is available for students at all levels. In 2006, notwithstanding the Catholic Churchs objection, a new law went into effect that made explicit the recognition of sexual and affective diversity as one of the objectives of the Spanish educational system. As part of the law, a new course was proposed, called Education for Civic Behavior and Human Rights. It teaches rejection of homophobia and advocates for the recognition of different types of families (including those involving same-sex parents). This course is expected to nd a place in the ofcial compulsory curriculum of primary and secondary schools (10- to 18-year-old students). Education is compulsory until the age of 16.

274

J. I. Pichardo Galan et al.

Until recently, such curriculaor even sexuality studies in general have not been taught in Spanish schools; the Catholic inuence is only one explanation. Although the Spanish government is sensitive to the situation of discrimination against LGBT youth and provides the guidelines for education, it is the autonomous regions that manage, interpret, and develop them (Generelo, 2007). Many of these regional governments are conservative. There are also deciencies in teacher training and the lack of time for addressing these issues in class. Teachers, school boards, and politicians often cite parents as a reason not to talk about sex in the formal context of a lesson, assuming parents prefer to address these questions at home. If teaching about overall sexuality is not an option, it is impossible to make sexual diversity or LGBT people visible at school. Homophobic bullying thus remains invisible to many educators, parents, and to society in general. Thanks to the pressure of LGBT groups, the national government, progressive about sexual diversity, is trying to change this situation, but the obstacles and resistance are still strong.

EARLY STUDIES
The invisibility of sexual diversity and homophobic bullying at schools motivated an alliance between Madrids main LGBT group, COGAM (Collective of Lesbians, Gays, Transsexuals and Bisexuals of Madrid), and the Depart ment of Social Anthropology at the University Autonoma of Madrid (UAM) to conduct joint research on the situation of LGBT students in secondary schools. A group of nine sociologists, psychologists, social anthropologists, and educators initiated one of the rst major studies involving 32 high schools. Eight hundred sixty-nine students responded to survey questions about their attitudes towards gay and lesbian people and participatory observation was done with teachers and workers at secondary schools (Generelo & Pichardo, 2005). The study revealed that LGBT adolescents suffer from an inequitable educational environment that puts them at risk for low self-esteem, depression, and suicidal behavior. There is a high degree of ignorance on same-sex sexual practices and identities and transgender people4 among students. These data were again conrmed in the current study, where, for example, 56.6 percent of the students said they did not know anyone who is transexual (used in Spain to denote transgender people), and 6.1 percent did not even understand the word. In addition, sexism and homophobia are still present in high schools. Based on our observations while conducting surveys with students and conducting training sessions for teachers in the schools LGBT teachers dont dare to come out, making it more difcult for non-heterosexual youth to

LGBT Youth in Spain

275

see or know any LGBT identied adults in positions of authority. This situation occurs with the silence and complicity of the people working and studying at schools and the absence of institutional support to ght discrimination. This study reports no data about the frequency of homophobic bullying, but the specicity of homophobic bullying is explained: it is a kind of aggression, concealed and normalized. Unlike the case with most other types of discrimination, there is a lack of family support for the victim and the fear of being contaminated by homophobic stigma prevents help from potential allies. The prospect of suffering and rejection prevails for most adolescents thinking about coming out at school. Most students are thus reluctant to report homophobic bullying. School is one space where almost every young LGBT person spends a signicant amount of time, but not the only one. These teenagers come to expect other spaces to be characterized by homophobia, as documented in next survey conducted by the COGAM/FELGTB with the support of UAM (Generelo, Pichardo, & Galofr e, 2006). This qualitative study used participatory observation, that was conducted on the Internet,5 and 13 in-depth interviews with LGBT adolescents between 13 and 18-years-old throughout Spain. Our study conrmed that exclusion for LGBT youth also exists at home, with family and some friends, in the media, through videogames, on the Internet, and throughout society. Some educators and policy makers claim that sexuality is not dened during adolescence and that talking about sexual diversity at this age would confuse teenagers. But, as this study demonstrated, LGBT youth exist: a 13year-old girl can be sure of her sexual attraction to other girls, or a 15-year-old person can be certain that his/her body does not matching his/her gender. In general, the adolescents that participated in this study showed strong self-afrmation and resilience, characteristics not often associated with LGBT youth. A young woman, age 18, said during an interview: Ive been called a deviant many times by my family and people at school. Ok, so, if I am, what can I do? A woman, two years younger, said: I used to think I was normal, like the rest of girls. I know now that I am not. I am better than normal, because I am my own self. Still, respondents faced many complexities. For example, they reported difculty getting in touch with other LGBT teenagers, having sex with people their age, nding role models, coming out, or overcoming heteronormativity. Many of their families, friends, teachers, or classmates were not prepared to deal with their sexualities. Although many LGBT Internet spaces are forbidden for LGBT youth under 18, cyberspace opens up new possibilities for them through chats, mailing lists, and even visits onto prohibited sites. While there are no studies outside of our own in Spain to support our claims, homophobic bullying remains an enormous problem in the Spanish schools. Other studies in other parts of Europe, specically in Belgium, report

276

J. I. Pichardo Galan et al.

that only 30 percent of teenagers feel comfortable viewing public displays of affection by male couples, while the rates of comfort rise to 96.8 percent if it is a heterosexual couple (Herbigniaux & Laot, 2007). In the European report for the Association ILGA-Europe (the European section of the International Lesbian and Gay Association), 61 percent of the LGBT youth said they have experienced prejudice and/or discrimination in school (Tak acs, 2006). In the United States, 9 out-of-10 students report being bullied in school (GLSEN, 2007). Nevertheless, some Spanish LGBT adolescents identify as LGBT. Because of the visibility afforded by the public debate about gay marriage, LGBT youth know they can create their own families, have children and, in general, be happy. Some respondents reported that their families were very supportive when they came out. Most related that their friends did not let them down when they disclosed their sexual or gender identity, a situation they see as being lucky.

ADOLESCENTS AND SEXUAL DIVERSITY AT SCHOOL

The initial ndings of these two studies drew the attention of the mass media and, subsequently, of politicians and policy makers. Progressive and left-wing parties on the national and regional levels launched proposals to combat homophobia in schools and among teenagers. The initial research also prompted more studies. Some local governments contacted the Spanish LGBT Federation (FELGTB) to request that similar studies be conducted in their localities.

Methodology
One of these was the municipality of Coslada, a neighboring city to Madrid with approximately 80,000 inhabitants. The government of Coslada was interested in determining the situation for LGBT youth in all their secondary schools so that they could implement relevant public policies to support them. A research team with members of the two previous studies designed a survey in the form of questionnaires to be distributed among all the Cosladas secondary school students.6 These data were supplemented by classroom participatory observation. Wanting to go further than previous studies, researchers employed a statistically representative sample and included notyet-studied aspects such as the inuence of gender, religion, or ethnic origin on homophobic attitudes and on the sexual identities of adolescents.7 Our study thus expanded to sexuality, sexual and familial diversity, and homophobia among adolescents in general. We were also looking specically at the presence of LGBT students in classrooms; whether students have LGBT role models, the presence of homophobic attitudes among

LGBT Youth in Spain

277

heterosexual and non-heterosexual teenagers, and the anticipated reactions they would have if one of their peers were thought to be LGBT or came out as LGBT. The two page questionnaire had 16 questions such as: You feel attracted to? A range of answers were given, from girls always, girls most of the times, equal boys and girls, and so on, to cover a full scale of possibilities. To detect possible homophobic attitudes, the question asked was If your classmate sitting next to you tells you she/he is gay, lesbian, bisexual or transexual, you would. . .? The ve answers to choose from were I would try to change seats to I would trust that person and I would support him/her.8 At the beginning of the 20062007 school year, all public high schools in town were contacted. Access to schools was facilitated by the local council which was composed of representatives elected every four years. At that time, the council was ruled by a coalition of a local left-progressive party (Partido Independiente de Coslada) and the conservative party (Partido Popular). Nevertheless, all public and private schools are independently managed and the nal decision to take part in the study was up to each school board. At the beginning some of the schools were reluctant, as they didnt want to be the only one in town, but when they learned that other schools would be participating, they decided to take part as well. Ultimately, seven out of eight schools granted class time to administer the questionnaire. When creating the survey, a presentation letter for students, parents, and teachers was distributed. Some school administrators, worried about parents reactions, asked the research team to contact the parent associations. When we did, parents were always in favor of the proposal. Teachers distributed and collected the completed questionnaires (n = 3,033) in individual, sealed envelopes. Surprisingly to some, perhaps, the research team was congratulated because the survey advanced discussions of sexual diversity in many classes where the subject had remained hidden. Only two parents complained. A teacher from San Bartolom e de Tirajana who learned about this study suggested that the municipality also participate. San Bartolom e de Tirajanas 50,000 inhabitants live in the Canary Islands. Maspalomas, one of the main European LGBT tourist destinations, is located within its territory. The project was presented to the Local Education Council, in which educators, policy makers, parents and students are represented, and they unanimously supported the proposal. All nine educational centers in town were contacted; seven public ones participated. As in Coslada, no major resistance was encountered and most faculty, parents, and students considered the experience very positive. The data presented here reect 4,636 questionnaires completed by students between 11- and 19-years-old in Coslada and San Bartolom e de Tirajana. The surveys were completed during the tutorial, the weekly hour each teacher spends with his/her assigned class. The return rate was 83.7

278

J. I. Pichardo Galan et al.

percent (5,669 questionnaires were distributed and 4,746 were received, 110 questionnaires were not included in the results because they were lled in by students older than 19). Although almost all students completed the questionnaire in the schools which did participate, these results are not generalizable to the youth in the towns because private schools did not participate. In Coslada 65.1 percent of the total number of secondary students participated, and in San Bartolom e de Tirajana, the participation rate was 64.1 percent. Furthermore, these ndings are from only two cities in Spain, representing particular cultural, historical, and socioeconomic characteristics. Generalization cannot be extended to all regions of Spain. Nevertheless, this is one of the rst signicant quantitative studies in Spain on the presence of LGBT teenagers and the attitudes towards sexual diversity among adolescents. While we understand that LGBT identity is not static (Wilchins, 2004; Sullivan, 2003), and in fact in Spain, being LGBT might not be really an identity at all (Mira, 2000), we needed some way for the participants to identify. We used the Kinsey scale of attraction rather than categories of sexual orientation (homo, bi, hetero, gay, lesbian) not only to measure the percentage of LGB teenagers, but also to better understand the a range of results. The question on sexual desire was placed at the end of the questionnaire, which was returned in an individual sealed envelope to ensure condentiality.

RESULTS
In this section, we report data on reactions of heterosexual students to peers who might come out in school, the distribution of students who express sexual desire across the continuum from exclusively heterosexual to homosexual, and the attitudes of students toward public displays of affection by gay and lesbian couples. Three-fourths (76.2%) of the adolescents participating in this study observed that it is not easy for LGBT youth to come out at school. Participating students acknowledged that LGBT people are treated unfairly in the school. One student wrote that if a gay person admits it, he is a bloody fool. I would beat him up. I would hit him. The most typical response: If he says it to his classmates, he is going to have problems. Very few people would defend him here. The percentage of respondents expressing exclusive sexual attraction to the other gender was very similar between boys and girls (85% and 83%, respectively). These young people, ages 12 to 15, had a clear knowledge of their sexual desires. Only one percent reported they were unsure of their sexual attraction. Thus, around ve percent of the students participating in the study

LGBT Youth in Spain TABLE 1 Sexual Orientation (n = 4, 643) Answers to the question: Do you feel sexualy attracted to . . . ? Always attracted to boys Mostly boys Equally attracted to both Mostly attracted to girls Always attracted to girls Im not sure I prefer not to answer No answer Total Sex of respondents Boys 20 9 7 21 1,859 21 42 203 2,182 Girls 1,936 51 14 9 15 29 47 227 2,329 No answer 43 0 0 1 54 6 3 26 133

279

Total 1,999 60 21 31 1,928 56 92 456 4,643

could be placed within the categories of lesbian, gay, bisexual or questioning, not to mention those likely to be found among the subjects who decline to answer the question. Table 1 also shows the specic numbers of respondents expressing desire for the same gender, other gender, or both genders. One of the main aims of this study was to determine knowledge and experience teenagers have about sexual diversity. Almost all students report understanding the words, gay, lesbian, and bisexual. However, 6.1 percent said that they did not know the meaning of the word transsexual. As shown in Table 2, a majority (56.7%) did not know a person who is transgender but most (82.3%) knew a gay man; about one-half of the respondents reporting personally knowing a lesbian or bisexual person. There was a conspicuous lack of visibility of lesbians and more so of bisexual and transgender persons. Many students knew LGBT people only from television programs. About seven-out-of-ten (69.7%) of respondents students reported knowing of gay men from TV shows. About 32 percent said they knew of lesbians from television shows. Forty percent of the students relate that they know gay men in their actual environment. Sixteen percent of respondents actually knew
TABLE 2 Percentage of students who know gays, lesbians, bisexuals and trans persons in various contexts Gay Dont know anyone Close friends Classmates Acquaintances Family Teachers Historical or artistic celebrities Television and movie celebrities Dont understand the word 27.70% 22.80% 23.50% 40.00% 10.00% 24.70% 28.90% 69.70% 0.60% Lesbian 40.20% 14.90% 12.00% 23.60% 4.40% 7.30% 6.80% 31.80% 0.70% Bisexual 47.10% 13.00% 9.40% 16.20% 2.80% 3.60% 7.90% 18.90% 2.30% Transgender 56.60% 3.10% 2.00% 5.80% 1.70% 2.30% 3.70% 24.90% 6.10%

280

J. I. Pichardo Galan et al.

lesbians. The category of LGBT people least known were transsexuals. Most respondents indicated that they did not know any LGBT persons within their families. During our participatory observation with students, some of young persons said they were not homophobic simply because they wouldnt beat up an LGBT student, although they did draw from homophobic discourses, saying that homosexualidad is a sin, an illness, or simply not normal. This cognitive homophobia (Borrillo, 2001, p. 25)disapproval of the notion of homosexualitycontrasts with emotional homophobia (Borrillo, 2001, p. 25), that is, direct rejection of homosexual people or concrete practices. In order to examine this, we questioned adolescents reactions to public same-sex affection, such as kissing, hugging, or holding hands. There are distinct gender differences in responses to the question of public same-gender affection. About two-thirds of the girls expressed an accepting attitude toward displays of public affection between both male and female couples. Boys, however, were much more tolerant towards displays of affection by female couples (57.9%) than by male couples (34.7%). A signicant number of students, 32 percent of boys and 23.2 percent of girls, responding said they didnt mind seeing affection between LGBT couples but not in public. There were differences between young men and women who related feeling disgust when seeing a public display of affection between two men or two women. One-quarter (24.8%) of boys felt disgusted when viewing affection between same sex couples, and 7.1 percent believed it is wrong, while 9.6 percent of girls reported feeling disgust and just 2.36 percent said it is wrong.9 What is the relationship between knowing someone who is a sexual minority and the attitudes of students regarding a same-gender couple publicly showing affection? The results of this study suggest that knowing somebody well who openly identies as LGBT is related to more open attitudes regarding expression of same-sex affection in public. The number of students who think homosexuality is wrong is twice as high among those respondent who dont know any LGBT persons (7.2%) than it is among those with an LGBT relative (3.5%). Further, the percentage of respondents who think expression of same-gender public affection is acceptable is 20 percent higher among those who have an LGBT relative than those who do not personally know anyone who is a sexual minority. Examining homophobia from a different vantage point, male respondents were asked if a classmate came out as a lesbian, whether they would probably try to hook up with her. The percentage of male students who said they were likely to do so increased as they progressed in school. Three out of ten male students age 19 agreed compared to 8.5 percent of those beginning their teenage years. Trying to hook up with a lesbian student is one form of harassment. In this study, other forms of harassment and bullying were also examined.

LGBT Youth in Spain

281

TABLE 3 Percentage of boys that would have the following reactions if their classmates were LGB or T Gay I would change seat I wouldnt do anything, but I would feel uncomfortable I wouldnt change anything I would feel condent with that person and support him/her I would try to hook up with him/her 31.00% 40.80% 29.50% 11.30% 1.30% Lesbian 6.30% 14.50% 48.10% 24.70% 13.20% Bisexual 20.70% 26.40% 31.90% 10.10% 4.30% Transgender 31.10% 28.10% 22.90% 7.90% 0.70%

As show in Tables 3 and 4, boys were more likely to say they would change their behaviors toward a peer who has come out than girls, especially if the student was the same gender. 47 percent and 48.5 percent of the students said nothing would change for them if they discovered a classmate was lesbian or gay, and 27.3 percent and 25.3 percent, respectively, said they would feel more condence in that person and would support him or her. The percentages towards bisexuals were somewhat lower with 41 percent regarding that person the same, and 16.6 percent of respondents indicating that they would offer support to their bisexual classmate. Still, seven out of ten male students said that they would change their behaviors with a boy who has come out compared to one in two girls. For example, one-third of boys would change their seats and 41 percent would feel uncomfortable if they knew their classmate was gay. Again, reactions are much less negative among girls with one-ten of girls wanting to change their seats and 37 percent feeling uncomfortable. Yet, girls were less comfortable with lesbian classmates than with gay ones, just as boys were less comfortable with gay men than with lesbians. Only 14.8 percent of the students would support a transgender boy or girl who came out at school, and one out of ve would want to change seats. A much larger percentage of boys report being likely to change their seats (31.1%) with a transgender student than would girls (7.3%).
TABLE 4 Percentage of girls that would have the following reactions if their classmates were LGB or T Gay I would change seat I wouldnt do anything, but I would feel uncomfortable I wouldnt change anything I would feel condent with that person and support him/her I would try to hook up with him/her 2.40% 10.40% 63.80% 42.50% 1.50% Lesbian 10.00% 36.80% 49.30% 25.90% 1.20% Bisexual 5.70% 21.40% 51.80% 22.90% 1.80% Transgender 7.30% 19.20% 46.50% 21.40% 0.70%

282

J. I. Pichardo Galan et al.

TABLE 5 Expected reactions in signicant networks for adolescents in the event they come out as LGBT (percentage) Family They would beat me I would be excluded They would ignore it I dont know how they would react I would have their support They would force me to change 3.60% 7.00% 16.60% 38.80% 53.20% 19.00% Friends 5.80% 24.90% 14.30% 38.50% 31.70% 19.30% Teachers 1.70% 3.30% 35.50% 32.30% 25.10% 4.70% Classmates 13.40% 41.70% 10.90% 37.60% 8.40% 15.30%

Widespread homophobia, in high schools, especially among males, means that classrooms and education centers are unsafe for LGBT youth, even less safe than their family environment. The rates of students in this study, regardless of sexual identity, who think an LGBT person would receive worse treatment than a heterosexual one in different spaces are disconcerting, as evident in Table 5. Thirty-two percent of the participants think that an LGBT person would be treated less fairly by their family. This percentage increases to 72.6 percent for society in general and to 76.2 percent within the high school. So, one in three mostly heterosexual students perceives the family as a possibly hostile environment for an LGBT person, while the vast majority perceives the treatment given to LGBT people in their school as unfair compared to heterosexual identifying people. Students were asked what specically they would expect from their signicant networksidentied as family friends, teachers and classmates were they to have and disclose an LGB or T identity. As shown in Table 5, family is again perceived as more positive space, although only half of students would be certain of a supportive reaction from their families. The anticipated reaction from friends is uncertain or worse, since nearly 40 percent of the sample is unsure of the response and 25 percent believes that friends would reject them. Interestingly, while about one-third (31.7%) thought they would have support from their peers, a lesser percentage (as previously reported in Tables 3 and 4) actually expressed a willingness to support a sexual minority student in their classroom. Most threats to the security of LGBT youth are expected in the educational context, especially from classmates. Forty one percent of these mostly heterosexual-identied participants think they would suffer peer rejection if they were known to be LGB or T, and 13.4 percent were afraid of physical aggression. There is a perception among students that teaching staff are passive. That is, many participants (35.5%) believed that teachers would not take any action except denying or ignoring the fact that homophobic bullying occurs in their classrooms while another one-third had no idea how a teacher might

LGBT Youth in Spain TABLE 6 Percentage of students that have witnessed, performed or suffered homophobic aggression Has witnessed Has performed Has suffered Homophobic insults Homophobic rumors Taunting Threats Pushing and kicking Beating Exclusion and isolation 83.20% 76.90% 71.60% 50.20% 51.80% 37.00% 51.90% 30.50% 28.80% 29.30% 6.80% 13.70% 3.20% 15.30% 11.50% 16.00% 14.60% 7.90% 10.10% 2.60% 10.30%

283

react. Only one-in-four students thought that if they were LGB or T and came out in the classroom they would have teacher support. In spite of the fact that two-thirds of responding students claim respect for sexual diversity around 30 percent admitted to performing homophobic acts (insults, taunting, etc.), although there are no data on gender differences. Moreover, most students have witnessed forms of homophobic bullying, including insults (83%), rumors (77%), and taunting (72%). Between one-third to one-half of the respondents, as detailed in Table 6, have witnessed beating or pushing and kicking. Any student may suffer homophobic bullying, but those who dont t in with the heterosexual norm are more likely to be bullied (GLSEN, 2007; Herbigniaux & Laot, 2007). While about 5 percent of students in this sample identied as L, G, B or T, upwards of 16 percent reported experiencing some type of bullying. Two-thirds of the boys who reported feeling same-sex desire have suffered homophobic insults and abuse. One-of-ve reported beatings and oneof-ten experienced exclusion. These gures reect a reported bullying rate triple that experienced by heterosexual classmates.

DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

There was a signicant number of respondents (11%) who provided no answer the question of exclusive same sex attraction or selected the response of not preferring to answer. The result may indicate a desire for privacy or a hesitancy in putting in writing something that has been so long hidden, or they might be still questioning their own sexual desire. Among students who did not dene themselves, we assume some are LGBT. Among those whose responses showed heterosexual desire, there might be some who would not dare to go against the hegemonic rule because of the psychological and social consequences of doing so. Therefore, they may prefer to mark the box that situates them, socially and psychologically, in a momentary, non-problematic category. In fact, in the process of recognizing

284

J. I. Pichardo Galan et al.

ones same-sex desire, one must rst name it and then acknowledge oneself under an LGBT social identity (Gomez, 2004), and some LGBT youth probably have not reached that point yet. Only about one percent of the boys and a slightly smaller percentage of girls reported exclusive same-sex desire. Almost three percent of the students place themselves in an intermediate position of attraction for both sexes (i.e., bisexual) We found that different kinds of homophobia can exist alone or in combination with other kinds. It is interesting that even in boys who indicate that same sex relationships are natural and have nothing against same sex couples, emotional homophobia rates increase when they are asked to think about same sex displays of affection. The source of young male intolerance for gay men can be found in hegemonic masculinity. In this sense, traditional masculinity is built in contrast to what society establishes, and often devalues, as feminine (Generelo, 2004). Homophobia, then, becomes one of the main instruments through which traditional male gender roles are maintained. In the words of one of the students: To reject gay males makes you more macho. Male objectication of women leads them to view women making love as a spectacle to be consumed or a fantasy in which the male can participate rather than as an act of desire between the women from which he is excluded (Louderback & Whitley, 1997). As a male teenage participant said, It turns me on to see dykes shagging.

CONCLUSIONS
The percentage of students in this Spanish sample with openly homophobic attitudes is a minority. Still, at almost one third, they are likely responsible for much suffering experienced by LGBT students or those who violate gender norms. Adults, including teachers, are reluctant or fearful about speaking with teenagers about sexual issues. This silence, an absent curriculum, and the reluctance of many classmates to express their support, allow this openly hateful minority to impose its will at school, keeping many young LGBT students (and teachers) closeted, invisible and threatened. Women appear to be more tolerant and respectful of sexual diversity, a positive factor in a campaign for LGBT equality. Working with homophobic male teenagers, on the other hand, may require teaching new ways of being a man that do not derive from sexism and homophobia. Education on gender equality should be mainstreamed in every subject, but also in specic classes designed for it. Our observations and interviews throughout all of these studies revealed that parents usually show much more respect for sexual diversity than expected and they prefer to have sexual education for their children at school.

LGBT Youth in Spain

285

Our observations contradict the idea, defended by conservative groups, that only parents have the right to talk about sex to adolescents. Acknowledgment of sexual diversity in a standard education is still considered taboo and makes many educators uncomfortable. Yet the fact that 16 percent of adolescents dont declare an explicit heterosexual desire shows the sexual diversity of young people and suggests the prevalence of sexual identity questioning among them. It would be reasonable to accompany this process of sexual identity formation with an education devoid of negative prejudices. Yet in contradiction to the ideas that teaching respect for diversity should be done in early childhood before intolerance takes hold, many critics in Spain argue that only older teenagers are ready to receive this type of education. The data presented here represents a challenge for the Spanish educational system: it has to change the prevailing image of schools among heterosexual and LGBT students as one of the most dangerous places for LGBT youth. If, as we have seen, not all students are heterosexual, educators should not treat them as if they were. This means overcoming the heterosexual presumption in the classroomnaming heterosexuality as Us and all who are LGBT or questioning as Them. Lastly, in addition to the fact that many students families dont t within the nuclear heterosexual family model, there are also boys and girls who see themselves eventually becoming part of a same-gender couple or family, maybe with children. It is vital for schools to teach the diversity of family models in our society, including families formed by people of the same sex.

NOTES
1. National-Catholicism is the political ideology founded on the moral values of the Catholicism of the time 2. Homosexuality was considered illegal until the very end of the 1970 s. Yet, even at the beginning of the 1990 s, the city of Madrid denied permission to the local LGBT Association (COGAM) to open its community center. 3. Even though in 1973 only 3% of Spanish society accepted same-sex relations (Petit, 2003, p. 17), by 2004, two-thirds of the population favored gay marriage (Center of Sociological Investigation, 2004). 4. The words used in Spanish were homosexualidad y transexualidad, which do not have a negative meaning in Spain and are used by LGBT associations as well as scholars. 5. Researchers visited LGBT web pages and chat rooms intended for LGBT adults and those intended for LGBT youth. Sometimes researchers participated in online conversations as researchers and at other times they simply read the materials available there. 6. The research that is presented in the second part of this article was conducted by Jos e Ignacio Pichardo Gal an, as coordinator; Bel en Molinuevo Puras, as coordinator in Coslada; Pedro Octavio Rodr guez Medina, as coordinator in San Bartolom e de Tirajana; Nuria Mart n Mart n and Marta Romero Lopez. 7. We did a pilot test using subjects not included in the sample (a class of high school students from a secondary school in Madrid who were the same age) and asked for some expert opinions before carrying out the actual survey. We made some changes on the initial questionnaire taking into account that information. The complete report of this study can be found in Spanish at: http://www.elpais.com/elpaismedia/ diario/media/200801/07/sociedad/20080107elpepisoc 1 Pes PDF.pdf

286

J. I. Pichardo Galan et al.

8. For more information on methods, see: http://www.cogam.es/resourceserver/1641/d112d6ad54ec-438b-9358-4483f9e98868/ca3/rglang/es-ES/lename/informe-adolescentes-ante-la-diversidad-sexual.pdf 9. These answers referred to repulsion or disgust when the respondent sees a public display of affection between same sex male couples. We suggest that this reaction shows emotional homophobia. Cognitive homophobia is when responses include the politically correct perspective, which is to say you dont mind the existence of LGBT persons as long as the respondent doesnt have to see their public displays of same sex affection. Our interpretation is that to say it is wrong is rejecting the fact from a moral perspective, which expresses cognitive homophobia, while to say is disgusting or it is ne, but not in public are two answers accepting the existence of LGBT persons but still evidencing internalized, emotional homophobia.

REFERENCES
Arnalte, A. (2003). Redada de violetas: la represi on de los homosexuales durante el franquismo [Raid of violets: the repression of homosexuals during the Franco regime]. Madrid: La Esfera de los Libros. Borrillo, D. (2001). Homofobia [Homophobia]. Barcelona: Bellaterra. Centro de Investigaciones Sociol ogicas (CIS) (2004). Bar ometro de junio [June Barometer]. Estudio n 2.568, Madrid: CIS. Eisenberg, D. (1999). La escondida senda [The hidden path]: Homosexuality in Spanish history and culture. In D. Foster (Ed.), Spanish writers on gay and lesbian themes: A sourcebook (pp. 121). Westport, CT: Greenwood. Generelo, J. (2004). C omo superar la homofobia. Manual de supervivencia en un medio hostil [Overcoming homophobia: A manual of survival in a hostile environment]. Madrid: Gaysaber. Generelo, J. (2007). Educating about sexual and affective diversity in Spain: The challenge of turning legal equality into actual equality. In L. Van Dijk and B. Van Driel (Eds.), Challenging homophobia: Teaching about sexual diversity (pp. 128147). London: Trentham. Generelo, J., & Pichardo, J. (Eds.). (2005). Homofobia en el sistema educativo [Homophobia in the education system]. Madrid: COGAM. Generelo, J., Pichardo, J., & Galofr e, G. (Eds.). (2006). Adolescencia y sexuali [Adolescence and sexual minority: dades minoritarias. Voces desde la exclusion Voices from the exclusion]. Madrid: COGAM. GLSEN. (2007) 2007 National school climate survey: Nearly 9 out of 10 LGBT students harassed. Retrieved February 21, 2009, from http://www.glsen.org/ cgibin/iowa/all/news/record/2340.html Gomez, A. (2004). Ser e Gay? [Will I be gay?]. Madrid: Gaysaber. Herbigniaux, F., & Laot, J. (2007). La perception de lhomosexualit e chez les jeunes de 13 a ` 21 ans [The perception of homosexuality among young people aged 13 to 21]. Brussels: F ed eration des Centres de Planning Familial des FPS. Louderback, L., & Whitley, B., Jr. (1997). Perceived erotic value of homosexuality and sex role attitudes as mediators of sex differences in heterosexual college students attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. The Journal of Sex Research, 34, 175182. Mira, A. (2000). Laws of silence: Homosexual identity and visibility in contemporary Spanish culture. In B. Jordan & R. Morgan-Tamosunas. (Eds.), Contemporary Spanish cultural studies (pp. 241250). New York: Oxford University Press.

LGBT Youth in Spain

287

Olmeda, F. (2004). El latigo y la pluma. Homosexuales en la Espa na de Franco [The whip and the feather: Homosexuals in Spain during Franco]. Madrid: Oberon. Rubin, G. (1993). Thinking sex: Notes for a radical theory of the politics of sexuality. In H. Abelove, M. Barale & D. Halperin. (Eds.), The lesbian and gay studies reader (pp. 344). New York: Routledge. Stein, A. (1997). Sex and sensibility: Stories of a lesbian generation. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Sullivan, N. (2003). Critical introduction to queer theory. New York: New York University Press. Svab, A., & Kuhar, R. (2005). The unbearable comfort of privacy: The everyday life of gays and lesbians. Ljubljana, Slovenia: Mirovni Institut. Tak acs, J. (2006). Social exclusion of young lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people (LGBT) in Europe. Brussels: ILGA Europe. Wilchins, R. (2004). Queer theory, gender theory: An instant primer. Los Angeles: Alyson.

CONTRIBUTORS
Jos e Ignacio Pichardo Gal an is Assistant Professor of Social Anthropology at Universidad Complutense de Madrid. Bel en Molinuevo Puras is an anthropologist currently working for COGAM, the Gay and Lesbian Association of Madrid. Robin L. Riley is Assistant Professor of Womens and Gender Studies at Syracuse University.