“Words Aren’t Supposed to Hurt, But They Do”: Sexual and Gender Minority Youth’s Bullying Experiences

Abstract

Sexual and gender minority youth (SGMY) are more likely to experience bullying and violence compared to the youth who do not identify as SGMY, leading to increased risk of poor mental and physical health outcomes, and poor academic performance. Few studies explore the entire range of bullying experienced by sexual and gender minority youth (SGMY). The purpose of this study was to qualitatively describe the ways in which SGMY experience bullying victimization. We conducted semi-structured interviews with a diverse sample of 20 SGMY aged 14–18 years (median age 16 years) recruited from online social media. The sample included 10 participants who identified as cisgender girls, 4 who identified as cisgender boys, 2 who identified as transgender, and 4 who identified as another gender identity. Ten participants identified as bisexual, six identified as lesbian, and four identified as gay. Findings indicated six common experiences of bullying among the participants: (a) verbal harassment; (b) gender policing; (c) physical violence; (d) sexual harassment; (e) treated as sexual perpetrators and deviants; and (f) and social exclusion. SGMY described how bullying victimization ranged from overt to concealed attitudes and behaviors, and they articulated how several forms of bullying are likely not experienced by heterosexual and cisgender youth. These results support findings from prior qualitative studies and suggest that efforts to address school-based bullying may benefit from a more complete awareness of the range of bullying victimization experienced by SGMY. Development of multi-item scales of bullying that reflect the six common experiences of bullying presented in this study would allow researchers to quantitatively explore the range of bullying behaviors experienced by SGMY, and would aid in the conceptualization and successful implementation of anti-bullying interventions.

Sexual and gender minority youth (SGMY) are more likely to experience bullying and violence compared to the youth do not identify as SGMY (Berlan et al., 2010; Blondeel et al., 2018; Friedman et al., 2011; Marshall et al., 2015). SGMY who experience bullying victimization are more likely to report depression, risky sexual behaviors, substance use, poor academic performance, suicidal ideation, and suicide attempts (Berlan et al., 2010; Friedman et al., 2011; Hatzenbuehler, 2011; Kosciw et al., 2018; Marshall et al., 2015; Mustanski et al., 2010; Nansel et al., 2001). Furthermore, the negative effects of bullying victimization among SGMY also extend into adulthood. For example, researchers have noted worse mental and physical health among adult LGB individuals with a history of being victims of bullying relative to those who were not bullied in school (Andersen et al., 2015; Rivers 2001, 2004).

Prevalence estimates indicate that bullying victimization among SGMY is pervasive. In the 2017 Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS), 33% of SMY reported being bullied on school property compared to 17% of heterosexual students. Similarly, the prevalence of online bullying was higher among SMY (27%) compared to heterosexual students (13%) (Kann et al., 2018). The National School Climate Survey also indicates high prevalence of bullying among SGMY. In the survey, 70.1% of SGMY reported experiencing verbal harassment, 28.9% reporting experiencing physical harassment, and 98.5% reporting hearing homophobic or transphobic remarks at school (Kosciw et al., 2018). SGMY also experience more bullying due to their weight, race/ethnicity, or religious affiliation relative to their cisgender, heterosexual peers (Gower, Watson, et al., 2020; Lessard et al., 2020).

There may be differences in bullying victimization for gender minority youth (GMY) relative to their sexual minority peers. The term gender minority refers to youth who identify as transgender as well as gender nonconforming youth whose gender identities or gender expressions fall outside of the social norms typically associated with their assigned sex at birth (Hendricks & Testa, 2012). In contrast, sexual minority youth are those who do not exclusively identify as heterosexual or who experience same-gender sexual or romantic attractions (Savin-Williams & Cohen, 2004). Across several studies, GMY reported higher rates of bullying relative to their sexual minority or non-gender minority peers (Greytak et al., 2009; Kosciw et al., 2018; Reisner et al., 2015; Sterzing et al., 2019). Additionally, there is a consistent and strong relationship between the degree of gender nonconformity and bullying victimization, even among heterosexual students (Gordon et al., 2018; Klemmer et al., 2019).

Most quantitative analyses are limited in their ability to identify specific forms of bullying behavior experienced by SGMY. For example, in surveys the experiences of victimization are subsumed under general labels of “bullying”, “verbal or physical harassment”, or “homophobic remarks.” Beyond these broad categorizations, few quantitative studies include measures that distinguish between general bullying behaviors and those that are attributable to anti-LGBT bullying (for an exception see Evans & Chapman, 2014). While it is apparent that the motivation for bullying differs between general and anti-LGBT bullying, what is less known is whether there are differences in how the bullying is manifested in action.

Qualitative studies have identified a high prevalence of bias-based bullying (Gower, Brown, et al., 2020; Grossman et al., 2009; Mishna et al., 2009) as well as other unique forms of bullying. One such form of bullying is gender policing, defined as the process of enforcing cultural expectations for “normal” masculine and feminine expression, assuming one’s gender expression must be aligned with their “biological sex” (Marshall & Allison, 2017; Payne & Smith, 2016). Another form of bullying are microaggressions, which are “brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral, or environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative slights and insults towards members of oppressed groups” (Nadal, 2008, p. 23; Nadal et al., 2011). Nadal et al. described how anti-LGBT prejudice and discrimination have become less overt and more subtle and can be expressed through several categories of assault, invalidation, and insult (Nadal et al., 2010). In one qualitative investigation, transgender students reported unique forms of bullying including deadnaming and misgendering (called an incorrect name or pronoun, respectively) (Earnshaw et al., 2019).

The present study sought to extend this work to more thoroughly understand whether and how more unique and subtle forms of anti-LGBT bias are manifested in bullying behaviors. This study was informed by the social-ecological model as a guiding framework to understand bullying behaviors in the context of school, family, and social and cultural systems (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Espelage & Swearer, 2003), as well as work that calls for a broader conceptualization of bullying beyond the traditional and restrictive definitions proposed in the early literature (Carrera et al., 2011). Definitions of bullying restricted to repeated, intentional acts of aggression characterized by a power imbalance exclude forms of behavior that often target SGMY, such as homophobic slurs (Carnaghi et al., 2011; Siann et al., 1994). Nevertheless, these actions cause equal distress to the victim. In fact, SGMY may avoid reporting bullying to adults if their experiences do not meet the established definition of bullying (Gower, Brown, et al., 2020). By adopting a broader definition of bullying within the context of a social-ecological framework we can better understand the full spectrum of the bullying experiences of SGMY. The purpose of this study was to qualitatively describe the ways in which SGMY experience bullying victimization and to consider how the results may guide prevention efforts based on a social-ecological model.

Methods

Participants

For this study, we recruited 20 individuals throughout the United States to participate in online semi-structured qualitative interviews. The participants ranged from 14 to 18 years of age, with the median age of the sample being 16 years. The racial composition of the sample was as follows: seven participants identified as White, four as African-American/Black, three as Hispanic/Latino, two as Asian, and four as mixed-race. The sample included 10 participants who identified as cisgender (i.e., non-transgender) girls, 4 who identified as cisgender boys, 2 who identified as transgender, and 4 who identified as another gender identity. Of the 20 participants, 10 identified as bisexual, 6 as lesbian, and 4 as gay.

Procedure

From November 2016 until January 2017, we recruited potential participants by purchasing Facebook Ads to place promotional materials on both Facebook and Instagram. The promotional materials identified SGMY as the population of interest, mentioned a gift card incentive, and provided a link to an online screening questionnaire. We tailored the advertisements towards SGMY by using phrases such as “LGBT Teens Needed for Research Study!” or “Help Stop LGBT Bullying!”. We did not employ strict sampling quotas, but aimed to recruit a wide range of sexual identities, race/ethnicities, and ages by targeting the promotional materials towards certain sub-groups (e.g., using pictures of LGBTQ boys of color). To be eligible for participation, recruits had to be between the ages of 14 and 18 years at the time of the interview, live in the United States, and report experiencing bullying victimization (e.g., online or in-person physical attacks, verbal attacks, exclusion from activities, or spreading rumors) in the past six months. Following completion of the screener questionnaire, all eligible participants were contacted via text message by a member of the research team to schedule the interview.

Study Design

This study employed a qualitative descriptive methodology (Sandelowski, 2000). Qualitative description is useful in situations where little is known about the subject or where the participants’ voices are required (Sullivan-Bolyai et al., 2005). A research assistant (JMS) trained in qualitative interviewing conducted the interviews over Skype using either video or audio only, in an effort to accommodate participant preference. Eighteen interviews were conducted over Skype, while two participants elected for an audio-only interview. A IRB-approved waiver of parental consent was obtained to protect the privacy of the participant. By requiring parental consent, we could have “outed” SGMY as LGBTQ to their parent(s), potentially placing them at risk for violence from their family. In lieu of obtaining parental consent, we instructed SGMY in the verbal consent process to be aware of their surroundings during the interview and to complete the interview in a quiet and safe place. Participants were asked to consent to both the interview process and the use of an audio recorder; however, only the audio was recorded and saved. Interviews lasted between 30 and 60 minutes, and began with brief rapport-buildling questions (e.g., “Tell me a little bit about yourself”). The research assistant used an interview guide originally developed by the principal investigator which covered the following topics: experiences of bullying (“What did the bullying look like for you?”); support (What kinds of support did you receive after you were bullied?”); coping (“What do you think is the best wasy for someone who is LGBTQ to handle bullying?”); and outness (How has being out impacted you being bullied?”). Upon completion of the interview, participants were emailed a $15 iTunes gift card as compensation for their time. Due to the exploratory nature of the study, the study was concluded once we collected data from 20 participants; we did not attempt to achieve thematic saturation or redundancy. This study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board at the University of Pittsburgh.

Researcher Characteristics and Reflexivity

The research team represents a diverse range of sexual identities, gender identities, and race/ethnicities. The research team member who conducted the interviews was an Asian gay cisgender man. The principal investigator and co-investigator were White gay cisgender men. The data analysis team consisted of a White heterosexual cisgender woman, a White gay cisgender man, and a White bisexual transgender man. We acknowledge that there are several ways our backgrounds may have influenced our research. Primarily, in cases where the interviewer came out to participants as a sexual and minority, this could have helped put participants at ease. Second, the interviewer kept a reflexive journal following each interview to reflect upon and limit any biases in the interviews. Finally, as sexual and gender minority researchers, we may be been able to identify more nuanced forms of bullying victimization throughout the data analysis process.

Data Analysis

Interviews were transcribed verbatim, checked for consistency, and all participant names and other identifiable information were removed prior to analysis. Interviews were then coded and analyzed by a team of four researchers, including the interviewer, all of whom had training in qualitative methods. The team began by reading three transcripts and creating an initial codebook using a hierarchical coding scheme. The study applied descriptive qualitative research to illustrate a comprehensive summary of bullying experiences among SGMY (Sandelowski, 2000, 2010; Thorne et al., 1997). Using the initial codebook, the team individually coded another three interviews using NVivo software (QSR International, Melbourne, Australia). Coded transcripts were then compared and modifications were made to improve clarity and reduce codebook redundancies. Upon finalizing the codebook, interviews were coded by two members of the research team. Meeting notes were taken throughout the process of codebook formation to ensure a transparent audit trail. The coders met frequently to discuss any discrepancies in the application of codes across the interviews, resolving differences by in-depth discussions and negotiated consensus with a third member of the research team.

Results

Bullying Victimization Experiences

Table 1 displays the six primary bullying victimization experiences described by SGMY: verbal harassment; gender policing; physical violence; pressure for sexual favors; treated as sexual perpetrators and deviants; and social exclusion. While each of these experiences are illustrated individually below, these forms of bullying often occurred simultaneously.

Table 1.

Sexual and Gender Minority Youth Categorical Codebook.

Category Name	Category Description	Number (Percentage) of Participants Invoking Code
Bully Victimization Experiences
Verbal harassment	Use of derogatory language, often involving anti-SGM terminology, ranging from whispers to overt slurs.	16 (80)
Gender policing	The enforcement of normative gender expressions and roles	8 (40)
Physical violence	Shoving, tripping, pushing, hitting, being hit with objects	3 (15)
Sexual harassment	Unwanted requests for sexual favors	4 (20)
Treated as sexual perpetrators	Accused of being a rapist, or accused of sexual orientation being morally unacceptable	2 (10)
Social exclusion	Prohibited from interacting with other students at school or outside school	5 (25)

Verbal harassment.

One form of bullying described by SGMY was the use of derogatory slurs, often involving anti-SGM terminology. As one respondent described:

They’d push me and stuff, and they pushed me around. One time one of them slammed me up against the wall and called me names like “faggot” and “queer” and were just being horrible, horrible people. That was the worst experience that I’ve had. (White gay cisgender boy, 16 years old)

Above, the participant experienced combined physical and verbal harassment. Other respondents reported similar experiences, in which terms such as “faggot”, “queer”, or “dyke” were used to belittle the victim. Regarding the effect that verbal abuse had on him, one respondent noted:

I know people are like, “oh words aren’t supposed to hurt,” but they do. They can scar a person for life. (Hispanic/Latino bisexual cisgender boy, 16 years old)

This respondent articulated that even though verbal harassment may be dismissed as a less violent form of bullying, the SGM-related slurs were harmful to him, and significantly diminished his self-esteem in the following months. While much of the bullying involved overt experiences of verbal abuse, there was a range of verbal harassment. For example, one respondent described how other students reacted to their haircut with a more disguised form of bullying:

It’s not very aggressive, it’s more passive aggressive, like stares and whispers. Freshman year was when I first cut my hair short and I started looking more like a queer student. And [two girls who were sophomores] would pass by the halls and they’d whisper, “look at the queer, it’s the faggot.” (Hispanic/Latino bisexual gender minority, 15 years old)

Like the respondent above, several other participants recounted their experiences of receiving negative glances and whispers from their peers. While these actions were relatively silent and short-lived, they were still common acts of bullying. Verbal harassment was also not limited to the physical boundaries of the school. SGMY were frequently bullied by classmates on the Internet, particularly social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, or Snapchat. As one participant noted:

I know personally online I’ve been harassed over simple little things. My friends tag me in posts supporting gay rights, and I get messages saying all this crap about how I’m going to burn in hell. (Mixed-race bisexual cisgender girl, 16 years old)

Physical violence.

Some SGMY reported being pushed or pushed around in hallways, bathrooms, and buses. Others described being victim to more dangerous forms of physical violence, as one respondent recalled:

I had a girlfriend [at my old school]. We were walking to the buses and we were holding hands. And we got a bunch of kids throwing rocks at us. It was pretty much all of a sudden. But, yeah, they like threw rocks at us. I always assumed that it was because of the whole, like, Bible thing, like gay people need to be like stoned or whatever. (White bisexual gender minority, 17 years old)

Here the respondent noted that this particularly egregious method of bullying reflected religious undertones. Whether the action was motivated by Biblical passages is unclear; however, the symbolism was nevertheless impactful for the respondent.

Sexual harassment.

In addition to physical harassment, bullying sometimes took the form of sexual harassment and coercion. One participant recalled an experience of being pressured for sexual favors:

A student knew I was gay, and would heavily pressure me for, uh, sexual favors. It was actually really hard to try to get rid of him because he was one of the popular kids at school, so he was able to do whatever he wanted. But he would always try to get me to do more with him at school. He would pressure me to try come over to his house and do stuff. And I would always decline, because he was very freaky all the time about it. I did not feel safe near him. For about a year and a half he would harass me with this. (White gay cisgender boy, 18 years old)

Several other participants felt that being open about their sexual or gender identity was viewed as an invitation for unwanted sexual advances from peers. These persistent advances led some respondent to fear for their safety.

Treated as sexual perpetrators and deviants.

Less commonly, SGMY were treated as sexual perpetrators and sexual deviants. As one respondent recalled:

So I was sitting at the lunch table with my friends, and these two girls were like whispering and looking at me. And I was like “alright, they’re just telling some joke” and I was like “ok, whatever.” But then everybody just got up and walked away, and I was like “what’s going on?” in my head and I was like “I’ll just sit here and eat, and ask them about it on text or something.” And they were like, “we can’t talk to you” and I kid you not, they said this: “we’re scared you might rape us!” (Asian lesbian cisgender girl, 16 years old)

This participant described how this incident left her feeling inferior:

Hearing those things is awful, because you feel like people don’t view you as a human being. They view you as a predator or this scary thing, when you’re human. You’re not even creepy. You just like girls and that’s not who you are. (Asian lesbian cisgender girl, 16 years old)

Gender policing.

Both sexual and gender minorities described experiencing gender policing (the enforcement of normative gender expressions and roles). SGMY who wore gender nonconforming clothing were often targeted by peers, as described by one respondent:

One of them said to me, “I get that you wanna express yourself and all, but you don’t have to walk around looking stupid, wearing girl’s clothes and stuff.” (Asian, bisexual, transgender individual, 14 years old)

This transgender student also described how her gender identity (not only her gender expression), was policed:

[My friend] would say, like, “You’re a boy. You consider yourself a girl when you’re not.” (Asian, bisexual, transgender individual, 14 years old)

In addition to how they dressed, SGMY described being targeted for the style, color, and length of their hair. Boys were also bullied for being “too feminine,” liking dance, and having friends who were girls. Likewise, girls were targeted for acting “too masculine.” One participant described how he was targeted immediately after joining the cheer team:

I tried to do sports and everything, but in the end I did cheer. Just because I was a cheerleader, the boys would always come and bully me, and tell me that I’m a fag constantly, every day. (White gay cisgender boy, 16 years old)

Social exclusion.

Feeling ostracized by other students and being excluded from social events was a common experience among study participants. One participant described how students at their school made them feel unwelcome:

Yeah it was hostile in terms of it being like, “Don’t be near me. I would prefer you like stay away from me.” And it was like, “our table is kind of full, there’s not really much room here so there’s really no where you can sit” and it’s like, “but look, each table can seat 16 people, you have 12, what are you talking about?” (White lesbian gender minority, 14 years old)

Several other participants were excluded from eating lunch with friends, and often attributed the exclusion to their SGM identity, as it no longer aligned with the social norms of the group. Parents also acted to exclude SGMY. One participant recalled how she was prohibited from participating in sleepovers at her friends’ houses.

Discussion

In this study, 20 SGMY detailed their experiences of bullying victimization. Findings from this qualitative study illustrate how SGMY are bullied in a variety of modalities including verbal harassment, gender policing, physical violence, being pressured for sexual favors, treated as sexual perpetrators and deviants, and through practices of exclusion. Notably, the domains of bullying experiences that emerged from the interviews revealed a level of complexity previously not captured by quantitative research. While quantitative surveys may document the proportion of students who are teased, threatened, or subject to physical violence, the experiences of students who are stared at or pressured for sexual favors are likely under-represented. Additionally, being “dress coded” and similar ways in which gender norms are enforced in school without explicit verbal or physical harassment are likely under-reported in quantitative surveys.

Verbal harassment was the most frequent form of bullying experienced by SGMY. Findings from this study are consistent with prior survey research that suggests the prevalence of verbal harassment, including anti-SGM remarks, is over twice as high as the prevalence of physical harassment targeted towards SGMY (Kosciw et al., 2018). Importantly, our findings also illustrated that verbal harassment encompassed a range of remarks, including those that were overt and loudly-spoken, to those that were subtler, such as stares and whispers. Likewise, verbal harassment was characterized by a range of comments such as “ew,” vulgar epithets such as “fag,” and threats such as “burn in hell.” Although objectively such comments can be placed on a spectrum from offensive to those that “aren’t supposed to hurt”, SGMY considered all remarks to be harmful, regardless of their position on this spectrum.

The audible and unconcealed instances of verbal harassment represent an opportunity for intervention by teachers and other school staff. In another qualitative study, Marshall et al. (2015) found that instances where teachers actively intervened after overhearing homophobic or transphobic remarks were salient demonstrations of support for SGMY. Unfortunately, other research has found that such intervention by teachers and school staff is rare; in schools that did not have an anti-bullying policy inclusive of sexual orientation, gender expression, or gender identity, teachers were far less likely to intervene (Kosciw et al., 2018). Given the value of inclusive anti-bullying policies and the benefit of social support from teachers, these findings warrant continued efforts to ensure that school staff understand and enforce such policies.

For SGMY who experienced more inconspicuous forms of bullying such as demeaning stares or discreet whispers, teacher intervention may not be a viable means to prevent or stop bullying. The challenge of addressing more subtle forms of bullying reflects the need to address the larger school context in which bullying takes place. Across several studies, hostile school climates are often cited as contributing factors to SGMY bullying (Birkett et al., 2009; Marshall & Allison, 2017; Newman et al., 2018). On the other hand, demonstrations of respect for SGMY including inclusive anti-bullying policies, the presence of Gay-Straight Alliances (GSAs), and SGM-specific curricula in classes appear to mitigate bullying (Castro & Sujak, 2014; Kosciw et al., 2018; Poteat et al., 2013; Russell et al., 2009; Saewyc et al., 2014). Peer attitudes towards SGMY may be positively influenced by these demonstrations of inclusivity at the school level. However, further research is needed to elucidate the mechanism by which school-level factors mitigate bullying.

The school setting may also be an appropriate environment to challenge the misperceptions of SGMY as “sexually deviant” or “sexual perpetrators.” One promising avenue for intervention is the implementation of SGM-inclusive sex education in US high schools. While SGM-inclusive sex education curriculum is relatively rare (Kosciw et al., 2018), and several states have policies actively prohibiting inclusive sex education (GLSEN, 2018), the general public overwhelming supports the inclusion of sexual orientation in sex education courses (Planned Parenthood Federation of America and Center for Latino Adolescent and Family Health, 2015). Public support for inclusion of gender identity in sex education courses is unknown. Importantly, prior research has shown SGM-inclusive sex education in schools to be effective in increasing sexual health knowledge and safe sex practices (Constantine et al., 2015; Rohrbach et al., 2015) and lowering school-based victimization and adverse mental health outcomes among students (Proulx et al., 2019). However, no study to date has examined the effect of SGM-inclusive sex education curriculum related to cisgender and heterosexual students’ perceptions and attitudes towards gender and sexual diversity. Inclusive sex education may be one avenue by which state-level policies can be combined with school-level practices to shift harmful attitudes towards SGMY.

Policy at the school-level alone may not be enough to sufficiently temper the range of bullying indicated in this study. The larger sociocultural context, including religion and the enforcement of social norms, is also implicated in promoting bullying of SGMY. Participant narratives described how religion was used to motivate and rationalize bullying. SGMY interpreted certain acts of physical violence, such as being hit with rocks, to be redolent of religious influence. Newman et al. (2018) also demonstrated the extent to which religion was used in a multitude of ways to support discrimination, harassment, and ostracism of SGMY. Like Newman et al. (2018), results of our study revealed how bullies invoke moralistic language such as “burn in hell” and cite the Bible to insist that SGMY are wrong.

The frequent instances of gender policing and exclusion of students whose gender expressions and mannerisms did not fit the dominant social norms of the school also reflected a culture of homophobia and transphobia. Across several studies, SGMY perceived as more gender incongruent or gender nonconforming report increased bullying victimization and emotional distress relative to those perceived as very congruent with their assigned sex (Gower et al., 2018; Marshall & Allison, 2017; Marshall et al., 2015; Rieger & Savin-Williams, 2012; Roberts et al., 2012; Toomey et al., 2010). The bullying of gender expansive youth may reflect behaviors first learned at home and in the community (Espelage & Swearer, 2003). Alternatively, bullies may mimic learned behaviors by observing other adults or students at school (Garby, 2013). School-based efforts are warranted to challenge the culture of stigma present in the school and community, including those that promote active acceptance and celebration of varying gender expressions and identities.

Limitations

The results of this study should be interpreted in light of several limitations. The present study examined the experiences of SGMY who were recruited from social media platforms. While the study participants were recruited from across the United States, these findings may not be generalizable to SGMY who choose not to use, or do not have access to the Internet. The small sample size limited our ability to examine within-group differences of SGMY. There is likely variation between SGMY based on assigned sex, race/ethnicity, gender identity, and geographic location. A useful area for further research would be to construct multi-item scales of bullying based on these preliminary findings, and examine the frequency of different types of bullying among SGMY subgroups.

Conclusion

Existing quantitative research has shown a high prevalence of bullying experienced by SGMY. The present study contextualized those experiences and demonstrated that there are several means by which SGMY are bullied, including verbal, physical, and sexual harassment, gender policing, and other acts intended to exclude the participants. Notably, the range of violence and bullying varied from brash and overt, to more disguised forms of bullying not easily detected by teachers and school staff. Findings from this study highlight the need for interventions at the individual, school, community, and societal level to promote the prevention and cessation of SGMY bullying victimization.

Biographies

Author Biographies

Emmett R. Henderson, MS, is a second-year PhD student in the Department of Behavioral and Community Health Sciences in the Graduate School of Public Health at the University of Pittsburgh, where he is also pursuing a Certificate in LGBT Health and Wellness. He obtained his MS in Health Outcomes Research from Saint Louis University.

Jordan M. Sang, PhD, MPH, is a postdoctoral scholar at the British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS. He holds a PhD from the Department of Behavioral and Community Health Sciences, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh.

William Louth-Marquez, MD, MPH, is a practicing physician with a specialty in Radiology and Medical Imaging. He holds an MD from the Escuela Superior de Medicina, Instituto Politécnico Nacional. He also holds an MPH in Behavioral and Community Health Sciences from the Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh. His current research focuses on access to healthcare and health equity amongst vulnerable groups, including LGBT+ individuals and the Latino population in an emerging Latino community.

James E. Egan, PhD, MPH, is an assistant professor in the Department of Behavioral and Community Health Sciences in the Graduate School of Public Health at the University of Pittsburgh. He holds a PhD from the Department of Behavioral and Community Health Sciences, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh. His current research centers on the health and well-being of LGBT populations, biobehavioral HIV prevention, and healthy aging for gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM). He is a co-investigator on the NIH funded EpiPrEP project, a collaboration with Fenway Health in Boston, exploring short-term episodic dosing for PrEP to prevent HIV infection. He is also an investigator on a NIH-funded project examining resiliencies among older MSM in the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study (MACS).

Dorothy Espelage, PhD, is professor of psychology at the University of Florida. She is the recipient of the APA Lifetime Achievement Award in Prevention Science and the 2016 APA Award for Distinguished Contributions to Research in Public Policy, and is a Fellow of APS, APA, and AERA. She was recently elected to the National Academy of Education. She earned her PhD in Counseling Psychology from Indiana University in 1997. Over the last 22 years, she has authored over 190 peer- reviewed articles, six edited books, and 70 chapters on bullying, homophobic teasing, sexual harassment, dating violence, and gang violence. Her research focuses on translating empirical findings into prevention and intervention programming and she has secured over $12 million of external funding.

Mark S. Friedman, PhD, is a licensed clinical social worker and provides therapy for adolescents, including LGBT individuals. He holds a PhD from the Department of Behavioral and Community Health Sciences, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh where his research focused on promoting the health of LGBT youth, understanding the victimization of LGBT youth, and HIV prevention among men who have sex with men.

Robert W. S. Coulter, PhD, MPH, is an assistant professor in the Department of Behavioral and Community Health Sciences in the Graduate School of Public Health at the University of Pittsburgh. He completed a Postdoctoral Scholar at the Clinical and Translational Science Institute in the University of Pittsburgh’s School of Medicine, and completed his PhD at the University of Pittsburgh’s Graduate School of Public Health, where he specialized in behavioral and community health sciences. His primary postdoctoral fellowship project was to conduct interview with school staff about how they can better support sexual minority youth, especially among girls who face great disparities in substance use.