Table of Contents
Understanding Homophobic Bullying Within Schools
“Gayness is much more than a social action” (Fellow student, May 2002)
Introduction
Stonewall (2002, page 1) claims that there “is considerable evidence that homophobic bullying is widespread in schools.” The focus of this piece is to understand a few aspects of that homophobic bullying within a school environment. To do this, it will attempt to answer some key questions that will allow the reader to interpret these points against his or her own experiences. Although its main concern is that of homophobic bullying, general bullying, and indeed general homophobia will be touched upon. It is aimed at a general audience, though those in education or those of a homosexual orientation will obviously be able to relate to it to a higher degree.
I am writing this with keen interest, mainly to further my professionalism on a topic that I will undoubtedly encounter many times during my career, but also on a personal level to improve my understanding of homosexuality and the problems faced by gays and lesbians whilst in an educative environment. I first became interested in covering this topic for this piece after reading an article in The Teacher (December 2000) magazine. This article by Sue Sanders stimulated my curiosity, at the same time shocked me with the facts it gave. Whilst carrying out research for this piece, I discovered that I had strong viewpoints on a topic that I had no real previous knowledge of, and hopefully these points will be put across without too much bias for the areas in consideration.
The key questions I will attempt to answer are:
- What is ‘Homophobic Bullying’ and what are its effects?
- Why do pupils bully with a homophobic bias?
- Who are the bullies?
- Who are the victims?
- What is and can be done to prevent it happening in the future?
To answer these questions, the piece will look at some wider homophobic viewpoints and relate these to the specific cases of schools. Also of consideration are some psychological aspects regarding the reasons why the bullying takes place in the first instance.
Many recent studies have been done on homophobic bullying and general homophobia within school and young people, and these are referred to in the text below. Although some of these studies have been mainly quantitative in their results, I will attempt to focus more on the qualitative results that they discovered.
What is “homophobic bullying” and what are its effects?
Although there are many differing definitions as to exactly what bullying is, many conform to having certain characteristics. These include that the ‘bullying’ must take place over a period of time, it must involve an imbalance of power between bully and victim, and that it can take the form of verbal, physical or psychological acts against the victim (Besag, 1988). I would initially question as to why single attacks are not defined as ‘bullying’, especially if the attack occurs when there is the imbalance of power. This bullying can happen for a variety of reasons: victims are fat, ginger, bespectacled, black, short, disfigured, skinny, disabled, Asian and so on (Matthews, 2001). A victim who is gay, or is thought to be gay is another reason for bullying. “Homophobia” is taken to mean the irrational fear or hatred of homosexuals (Note the ‘irrational’ part!). It may be directed at primary pupils as well as secondary pupils, and even pre-pubescent pupils (Antibullying.net, 2000, page 1). A pupil may be homophobically bullied just because he or she is thought to be gay, even if this turns out not to be the case. This is supported in the then DfEE’s Don’t Suffer in Silence anti-bullying pack: “Pupils do not necessarily have to be lesbian, gay or bi-sexual to experience such bullying. Just being different can be enough” (2000, p.15).
The language used within homophobic bullying can be fairly brutal towards the victim. Many adults, even now feel embarrassed at saying the word ‘homosexual’, but can throw the word ‘gay’ about without worry. Most homosexuals would describe themselves as ‘gay’ rather than homosexuals; is there something wrong with using the correct term? Do people find it offensive, or dirty in some way? Many slang words for homosexuals and homosexuality are used especially as derogatory terms. A common phrase heard whilst on teaching practice was “Oh, that’s gay”, in the sense of something being bad, or not to their liking. On one occasion I picked up on this (the other times I was only observing another teachers lesson and so not appropriate for me to interject) I enquired as to what was wrong with something being gay. The pupil, perhaps sensing my immediate response to his words, quickly claimed he thought there was nothing wrong with being gay. Although this was a single case, one has to wonder how many other pupils know that being homophobic goes against everything a school should stand for.
It’s interesting to note however, that within a wider society ‘reverse discourse’ has taken place i.e. taking terms that subjugate a subject and returning them as positive identifications of a group. Indeed, Butler, an eminent feminist and psychologist, points out that “the term ‘queer’ itself has been precisely the discursive rallying point for younger lesbians and gay men…[and] for bisexuals and straights for whom the term expresses an affiliation with anti-homophobic politics” (1993, p.230). Stonewall’s survey of 4000 young lesbian, gay and bisexual people was even called ‘Queer Bashing’.
A fellow student reported that the bullying and jibes happens to everyone. If a pupil gets called a “fag”, then he or she can accept it, and is likely to get bullied for it, or he or she can deny it, but then have to assert themselves in some way to disprove the accusation.
OutZone.org says that bullying can take the form of “[s]tares, looks, whispers, isolating someone, threats, hitting or pushing them, stealing their property, graffiti, name-calling, spreading rumours, sexual threats, [and] other forms of violence.” A fellow student expanded on this by including smirks, whispering, and particular to homophobic bullying, using an effeminate voice when saying the victim’s name or mocking the victim. Bullied himself when at school, he went on to say that it was the threat of more persecution, the intention of bullying rather than the actions themselves which was most troublesome.
The effects of homophobic bullying are quite similar to the effects of other types of bullying. Rivers (1996) points out however that homophobic bullying is often of a more severe nature due to the strong viewpoints of bullies (and society in general?), and so the effects are, in many cases, worse. From Rivers’ own study of non-heterosexuals (lesbians, gays and bisexuals) it was found that 40% had attempted suicide. As Stonewall agrees, “the effects of homophobic bullying extend outside of school to affect every part of a child’s life.” (2002, page 3).
Victims of other sorts of bullying can find strength and support from family and friends, victims of homophobic bullying feel isolated and alone. With a lack of role models to follow, either in their own lives or through the media, the young gay person stumbles on, not quite sure who or what they are and has a sense of futility about the future (Matthews, 2001).
Stonewall (2002, page 3) report that a 1986 study by KIDSCAPE recognised that homophobic bullying:
- Interferes with the education of students; and
- Affects the mental and physical health of students.
More specific effects of bullying, according to the KIDSCAPE study, include:
- Loss of confidence
- Diminished self-esteem
- Becoming withdrawn and nervous
- Being unable to concentrate
Longer-term effects for adults who suffered from bullying as a child include:
- Depression
- Fear of meeting strangers
- Guilt and shame
- Social isolation
- Agoraphobia
- Anxiety attacks
- Exceptional timidity
- Uncontrollable aggressive behaviour
- Criminal convictions
- Alcohol abuse
- Childcare problems
- Inability to maintain long-term relationships
Why do pupils bully with a homophobic bias?
The simplest answer to this question is that the bully wants to persecute the victim. This maybe due to a reason outside of the question of the victim’s sexuality, but in an effort to claim power over the victim, the bully might choose this as a ‘weakness’ to exploit. The bully (usually male – Duncan, 1999) gets his power due to the victim, if he (again, usually male – Duncan, 1999) is gay, being unable to discuss the problems with anyone, without having to ‘come out’. Indeed, the victim may already be having confusing feelings about themselves, and where they fit into an apparently completely heterosexual society, but the added burden of being bullied about it does nothing to ease the fears of the pupil. Even the seemingly innocuous act of giving a victim ‘the wink’ can be classed as bullying; it’s the interpretation of the act by victim and bully that gives the bully his power (Besag, 1989).
So why does the bully need all this power? The attempt to gain and maintain power has obvious connections to that of status, in particular, in the hierarchical system of the school. The imbalance of power is never more clearer than that of physical power within developing adolescents. Those who develop into puberty at a later stage to their peers may be bullied because they are physically smaller, and literally unable to fight back. This ruthless attack on late developers may be seen by others on the bully’s peer group as a show of ‘manliness’, and hence, greater power or kudos is given to them. This physical aggression might be due to the bullies copying significant others in their lives, or that they have never been taught that it is socially unacceptable (Besag, 1989).
A slightly different reason is that people, even at an early age, understand to some extent that there is a difference between being male, and being a ‘man’ (Davidson, 1990). The bullies try to bring into question the ‘manliness’ of their victim, and as Askew and Ross point out, “one of the most virulent insults that could be directed at most boys…was to be called ‘soft’ or ‘wimp’ or ‘poof’, ‘coward’ or something to that affect.” Besag expands by saying that these words and names are used to “dehumanise the victim, thus assuaging any guilt and giving permission for the process to continue once it is outside the human context.” (1989, p.43).
One main psychological reason behind homophobic bullying is not that the bullies are trying to put the victim down, but the converse that the bullies are trying to assert to themselves and others that they are not homosexual. Butler states that there is “a possible identification with an abject homosexuality at the heart of heterosexual identification” (1993, p.111). Antibullying.net agrees with this: “Many adolescent boys say that the worst thing anyone can call you is “gay”. In accusing others of being gay they may seek to demonstrate their own masculinity.” (2000). Jacques Derrida’s Binary Oppositions support these theories nicely. Haslach (1997, page 1) explains: “Derrida asserts that people necessarily and automatically create binary oppositions as ways of easily discerning one thing from another. For example, we view the concept of “Good” as we do because of the way it relates to the concept of “Evil.”.” This is therefore saying that bullies think “I’m not gay, I think being gay is bad, therefore I’m going to call you gay” As a twist on these theories, it is also actually possible for the bullies to be homosexual themselves who use this logical thinking as a mask. The bullying of others is a way to conform to the ethics of the group they socialise in i.e. being one of the lads. This is reported as happening by a fellow student, and also by NUT’s study in Leicester (1987).
Most young people have little or no social consciousness. The association they tie to language and particular words or phrases is often limiting for them. They may call someone ‘gay’ without actually knowing what is meant by ‘gay’. This point is picked up on by the DfEE as one way to reduce bulling: “exploring pupils’ understanding of their use of homophobic language – they might not understand the impact” (2000, p.15). Young people pick up words from adults, see them being used in a negative fashion, and in attempt to be mature and adult-like, use them where possible. However they are not aware of the social implications. They just know it’s a ‘bad’ word and hence use it to put down their victim. A fellow student however pointed out that some pupils will know what being gay means, either through having gay parents or otherwise, and may educate others, including bullies.
Although the kids follow the examples of the adults in society, adult’s views have changed a lot in the last 30 years. Before 1960, homosexual activity was considered illegal, but since the Stonewall riots in 1969 in New York, attitudes to homosexuals have changed. Davidson agrees: “There is much evidence to suggest that we have made some fairly significant shifts in our attitudes and behaviour in relation to sex. [T]o a certain degree, lesbian and gay sexuality [is] accepted (or at least tolerated) in a way unthinkable 25 years ago” (1990, p.3). It will take time to for the knowledge, understanding and acceptance of homosexuals to be passed down to the next generation, and until then, reports of homophobic bullying may well increase.
Now more gay characters are appearing on TV (Queer As Folk, Will And Grace, Gimme Gimme Gimme to name but a few), there is a proliferation of what being ‘Gay’ is. However, even this is limiting as it creates a stereotype of all gay people being camp. In the gay community, one category of gay man is called a clone – he is typically quite butch, may have a goatee, big boots and apparently into S & M – yet this image is still relatively shunned as being that of a gay man. In order for people to understand and accept homosexuals, they need to realise that, even in this minority group, there are sub-categories, as there in heterosexuals.
Another psychological idea played out by bully and victim is that of taking on an identity. Once either is labelled as such, it would take a lot of work (primarily by the victim) to change those labels. We need labels to identify groups of anomalous characters; to some extent, our own names include as part of a family unit, localities or nationalities, yet maladaptive labelling can also be used to exclude individuals from groups, and groups from society (Besag, 1989). Society in general has created stereotypes of groups that it contains due to various circumstances; socialising (‘the lad’), intelligence(‘the geek’), location(‘the working class northerner’), employment(‘the second-hand car salesman’, ‘the student’), and of course sexual orientation (‘the butch dyke’, ‘the camp queen’) etc. Each of these stereotypes have been defined first, and it’s only after seeing someone who falls into these groups, that we realise they aren’t like their stereotype at all (Besag, 1989). It is hardly surprising then, that these defined groups get passed down to pupils, who use (some of) them in an attempt to define their peers. Within a male environment, some may argue that being ‘a lad’ is a good thing, being seen as a ‘sissy’ however is generally not. Bullies use these labels to establish the hierarchy of status, and then act upon it to maintain or increase their status. Some bullies might think that the “label they have attached to [a victim] is simply a nickname” (Antibullying.net, 2000, page 1).
One area of constant debate concerning homosexuality and schools is that of Section 2a of the Local Government Act 1986 (amended by Clause 28 of the Local Government Act 1988, and usually referred to as “Section 28”). It states that local education authorities must not intentionally ‘promote’ homosexuality, or the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship. This came about after the educational video Jane lives with Eric and Martin was released, and a circular from Government was released that hit the media with headlines such as “Gay Lessons”. The clause pre-supposes the myth that “children can be led into homosexuality merely because it is presented as an acceptable form of sexuality for some people” (Leicester, 1993, p.14). With vague terms such as ‘promote’ used in the clause, many teachers at the front line felt unable to even stop discrimination and homophobia within the classroom, for fear of this being seen as promoting homosexuality (Duncan, 1999). My initial argument was that if Section 28 did not exist, then teachers could talk openly about homosexuality without fear of recrimination, therefore the pupils would be less ignorant about it, eliminating the mystery and uncertainty surrounding it. This, in my opinion, would reduce the amount of bullying. The Institute of Education’s study Playing It Safe claimed that 56% of teachers found it difficult in meeting the needs of young gay, lesbian and bisexual people due to the provision of Section 28. Unsurprisingly, 82% of the teachers found Section 28 confusing. The study recommends that, even though the legal issues surrounding Section 28 are minimal, its mere existence sends out a negative signal concerning homosexuality. Although many LEA’s at the time did change the material they provided their schools with and cancelled many educational activities (Stonewall, 2002, page 11) that had any connection with gays and lesbians, control of what is taught in schools has now left the LEA’s. This means that there is no restriction on teachers and schools about providing honest and factual information about what homosexuality is, or in providing support for those who need it. In fact, as part of the new statutory sex and relationship guidance, it has a section on dealing with the needs of young lesbian and gay people. This is the first time homosexuality has been directly addressed, without it being in the context of AIDS and safer sex.
A later addition to the clause states that in no way should the initial clause prohibit local authorities from teaching young people about the risks associated with not having ‘safer sex’. As this includes all types of sexual activities, homosexual behaviour can be discussed in an honest and factual way.
Who are the bullies?
Besag (1989) expands that aggression is one main contributing to bullying, and indeed, recognises a few different types of aggressive bullying:
- Organised aggression is premeditated and planned, for example a group of children who lie in wait for the victim after school. This form of attack is more damaging and dangerous reflecting a negative feeling, common to the group.
- Collective aggression is more spontaneous where one or two bullies make the initial attack, which attracts a mob which forms due to the promise of excitement, later joining in the bullying.
- Direct aggression is an attack on another with a deliberate attempt to harm, and can take the form of physical or a verbal attack.
- Ritualised aggression is symbolic in the sense that it is designed to display, to the victim a potency of the aggressor. It can be seen in appearance, dress and the carrying of weapons.
- Indirect aggression is the more covert form of malicious gossip, cruel jokes and social exclusion, and is usually favoured by female aggressors on female victims.
This aggression seems to be what separates the ‘men from the boys’, or in our case, the straights from the gays. Askew and Ross suggest that if “a boy touched another boy in any way other than aggressively he was likely to be called a ‘poof’ or ‘queer’” (1988, p.37, emphasis added).
”Taunts do not have to be true to be hurtful.”
(Antibullying.net, 2000, page 1)****
Who are the victims?
The majority of the victims are usually boys, as girls have a more liberal attitude to female and male homosexuality than boys. (Duncan, 1999). (Incidentally, the same study apparently showed that boys are more tolerant of lesbianism than of male homosexuality). Askew and Ross (1988) claim that bullying is two to three times more common in boys than in girls.
There are, like bullies, different types of victim. These include, but are not limited to the Passive victim: individuals who may be weak, cautious and withdrawn, have low self-esteem and find it difficult to make friends; Provocative victims are victims who intentionally provoke the aggression of others; Colluding victim: those who take the role of victim to gain acceptance and popularity; False victim: maliciously or conveniently blame others as a means of seeking attention; Bully victim: will, according to circumstance, play the part of both victim and bully. At any phase of being bullied, a victim may become one or more than one of these, in sometimes, desperate, attempts for the bullying to stop: being provocative to scare the bullies off (occasionally works, but can also lead to more damaging bullying if it does not); accepting and being a colluding victim in the hope that the bully will get bored and move on; be seen to be bullying others in an attempt to gain some status and recognition for not being an easy target themselves.
Some hardline critics may suggest that victims offer themselves as victims, and could have done something to stop themselves becoming victims if they really wanted. As a counter example to this, a fellow American student said that in his school, there were two students who were publicly out, yet no-one bullied them for fear of being called a bigot. Perhaps in certain areas of this country, the same ‘gay and proud of it’ tactic may work, but it would be a brave soul that attempts it. I feel that only time will allow the acceptance of publicly out school pupils in a society where teenagers are seen to have no thought processes of their own.
Askew and Ross (1988) point out that the power structure that is formed within schools, needs both the stronger, more dominant males, and the weaker males. Within an all-boys school, the weaker boys may in fact be cast as the less dominant females in society in general, and hence lack the ‘manliness’ to be anything but gay.
It can be argued that the mere act of having to control one’s identity within the public domain, does indeed shape and mould the individual to some extent; Butler calls this act ‘iterability’: “This iterability implies that ‘performance’ is not a singular ‘act’ or event, but a ritualized production, a ritual reiterated under and through constraint, under and through the force of prohibition and taboo, with the threat of ostracism and even death controlling and compelling the shape of the production, but not, I will insist, determining it fully in advance” (Butler, 1993, 95). Many young gays then seem to have to be of the quiet type, merely because that is how they can avoid getting the bullies focus, so much so that it becomes the ‘norm’ for them, yet it is also this quietness which highlights the differences between the victim and his peers.
What is and can be done to prevent it happening in the future?
Education about homosexuality should now be more prevalent after the Governments release of the statutory Sex, Health and Relationship Guidance in July 2000. As mentioned, this directly mentions dealing with homosexual concerns, and so bullying based on pure ignorance should be reduced.
One significant factor for homophobic bullying occurring is that some schools do not recognise it as a separate type of bullying, within their policies at least. One finding from the Institute of Education’s 1997 study Playing It Safe, showed that only 6% of schools had bullying policies that specifically mentioned homophobic bullying (Stonewall, page 2 & page 10, Matthews, 2001, p.4). Matthews carries on stating that by 2001, this percentage had increased slightly. Having read over the anti-bullying policy for all the schools I had been in, none of them made reference to homophobic bullying by name. This, following the knowledge of the 6% fact, was therefore unsurprising.
Homophobic name-calling should always be challenged in the same way that racist or sexist behaviour is. I would also add that the incorrect use of homosexual language should be picked up on. Normal anti-bullying strategies should be used when reacting to incidents and these strategies must have a clear place within the context of a whole school preventative policy.
On a larger scale, Stonewall (2000, page 12) reports that a “move by the Labour government to repeal section 28 as part of the Local Government Bill was defeated in the House of Lords by 270-228 votes at the end of July 2000.” It also reports that the Scottish Elective also want to scrap section 28, although nothing has come of it as yet.
Summary
The aim of this piece was to try and understand some of the various aspects of homophobic bullying within schools. It first looked at what homophobic bullying was, and the effects it has victims. It then attempted to look at possible reasons why the bullying takes place in the first instance. Recognisable characteristics of both bullies and victims were identified, and finally a look at what is being done in schools, and the Government to combat this happening in the future.
The references quoted at the end of this piece, not only provide the reader with information about homophobic bullying, but also include books I used as part of my research into general bullying, and more importantly, general homophobia. I find it quite shocking, for anyone to have such a strong negative view, and to their discredit, a closed mind as to homosexuality, when it appears they know little about the topic. One example comes from the book called Section 28 by the Stop The Clause Education Group (1989, p.33), and is a quote from a Member of Parliament: “There is no question at all that homosexuality in either sex is psychopathological perversion”. A psycho what?! As Owens (1998) point out, homosexuality is as natural to gays as heterosexuality is to straight people.
There are many points here that could be discussed as separate issues themselves. Further studies on psychological analysis of homophobic bullies may reveal some interesting insights. There are a few studies and books that consist mainly of recounting victim tales from school from young people, but few that tell of what the bullies feel. Due to the nature of this concept, it would be hard, if not impossible to find young pupils willing to admit to bullying, and fewer still who bully with a homophobic bias.
Talking to fellow gay students about their experiences of school, seem to suggest that each has a different story to tell. Many were not out whilst in school, or even displayed signs that they might be gay whilst in public, and these had no problem with homophobically bullying. Others say that they dare not admit to being gay for fear of physical aggression used against them, not just by other pupils, but parents of other pupils as well. In other schools, the homophobic bullying doesn’t seem to be at either of these extremes. One must remember though, that none of these pupils, whether gay or straight deserve to be treated in a way which demeans them, especially at a time when they are already having confusing feelings about who they are.
Teachers can do a lot to stop discrimination and the negative attitude surrounding homosexual behaviour, but it is the pupils themselves that need educating about it. Society in general is now far more acceptable of traditional ‘minority’ groups such as women, blacks, disabled people, and to some extent, gays, but the trend must continue for the latter to be seen as a section of society, and not a minority, and therefore, inferior group.
From this assignment, I hope to take away a base of knowledge and understanding that would allow me to develop and train in these areas later on in my career. The stigma surrounding homosexuality and young people, especially those within the education system in this country has, and will always be seen as a tricky subject in which to tread. Without the proper training, a teacher with all the best intentions may in fact do more harm than good. This isn’t to say that they should turn a blind eye, but that one needs to be careful about the message they, as teachers, as adults and as role models, put out to the younger generation. Teachers do affect the lives of youngsters; let’s make it a positive change.
References
Antibullying.net (January 2000) http://www.antibullying.net/homophobic2.htm _ [_Accessed on 02/06/02].
Askew, S. and Ross, C. (1988) Boys Don’t Cry: Boys and Sexism in Education. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Besag, V. E. (1989) Bullies and Victims in Schools. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Butler, J. (1993) Bodies That Matter. London: Routledge.
Davidson, N. (1990) Boys will be …? Sex Education and Young Men. London: Bedford Square Press.
DfEE (2000) Don’t__Suffer In Silence – an anti-bullying pack for schools. London: HMSO.
Duncan, N. (1999) Sexual Bullying: Gender Conflict and Pupil Culture in Secondary Schools. London: Routledge.
Haslach, R. (Feb 1997) “Binary Oppositions”, http://www.lawrence.edu/dept/english/courses/60A/handouts/reedsub2.html [Accessed 02/06/02]
Leicester, M. (1993) Equal opportunities in School: Social Class, Sexuality, Race, Gender and Special Needs. Harlow: Longman.
Lipkin, A. (1999) Understanding Homosexuality, Changing Schools: A Text for Teachers, Counsellors and Administrators. Oxford: West View Press.
Mac an Ghaill, M. (1994) The Making of Men: Masculinities, Sexualities and Schooling. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Matthews, J. (2001) “The bullying that dare not speak its name”, Teacher To Teacher, NUT, August 2001, p.4.
NUT (1987) Outlaws in the Classroom: Lesbians and Gays in the Schools System. Leicester: City of Leicester Teachers’ Association (NUT).
Owens Jr., R. E. (1998) Queer Kids: The Challenges and Promise for Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Youth. Binghamton, NY: Harrington Park Press.
Rivers, I. (1996) “Young, Gay and Bullied”, Young People Now, January 1996, p.19.
Sanders, S. (2000). “Tackling homophobic bullying”, The Teacher, NUT, December 2000, p.36.
Stafford, J. M. (1988) Homosexuality and Education. Manchester: Stafford, J. M.
Stonewall.org.uk (Date unknown) Various individual pages, http://www.stonewall.org.uk. [Last accessed on 02/06/02]
Page 1: http://www.stonewall.org.uk/template.asp?Level1=2&Level2=0&Level3=0&UserType=2
Page 2: http://www.stonewall.org.uk/template.asp?Level1=2&Level2=23&UserType=2
Page 3: http://www.stonewall.org.uk/template.asp?Level1=2&Level2=23&Level3=213&UserType=2
Page 4: http://www.stonewall.org.uk/template.asp?Level1=2&Level2=23&Level3=408&UserType=2
Page 5: http://www.stonewall.org.uk/template.asp?Level1=2&Level2=23&Level3=142&UserType=2
Page 6: http://www.stonewall.org.uk/template.asp?Level1=2&Level2=22&UserType=2
Page 7: http://www.stonewall.org.uk/template.asp?Level1=2&Level2=22&Level3=529&UserType=2
Page 8: http://www.stonewall.org.uk/template.asp?Level1=2&Level2=22&Level3=437&UserType=2
Page 9: http://www.stonewall.org.uk/template.asp?Level1=2&Level2=22&Level3=439&UserType=2
Page 10: http://www.stonewall.org.uk/template.asp?Level1=2&Level2=22&Level3=434&UserType=2
Page 11: http://www.stonewall.org.uk/template.asp?Level1=2&Level2=22&Level3=440&UserType=2
Page 12: http://www.stonewall.org.uk/template.asp?Level1=2&Level2=24&UserType=2
Page 13: http://www.stonewall.org.uk/template.asp?Level1=2&Level2=24&Level3=219&UserType=2
Page 14: http://www.stonewall.org.uk/template.asp?Level1=2&Level2=24&Level3=148&UserType=2
Page 15: http://www.stonewall.org.uk/template.asp?Level1=2&Level2=24&Level3=147&UserType=2
Page 16: http://www.stonewall.org.uk/template.asp?Level1=2&Level2=24&Level3=151&UserType=2
Page 17: http://www.stonewall.org.uk/template.asp?Level1=2&Level2=24&Level3=153&UserType=2
Page 18: http://www.stonewall.org.uk/template.asp?Level1=2&Level2=24&Level3=410&UserType=2
Stop The Clause Education Group, The (1989) Section 28: A Guide for Schools, Teachers, Governers. London: The Stop The Clause Education Group.
Trenchard, L. and Warren, H. (1984) Something to Tell You. London: The London Gay Teenage Group.
Virginia Hilu (Ed.) (1967) Sex Education and the Schools. New York, NY: Harper & Row.