Extraordinary Acts to “Show Up”: Conceptualizing Resilience of LGBTQ Youth

Recruitment and Participants

First, service providers (SP; n = 16) were recruited through various local organizations (e.g., health care, social services, education) that work with LGBTQ youth. The inclusion criteria for SP were to (a) be older than the maximum age limit of youth served in their respective organizations, (b) have worked with LGBTQ youth for at least 3 years, and (c) be as either a paid professional (e.g., social worker, health care provider) or a community volunteer. Of the 16 SP participants, three of them were volunteers. Most SP were White (n = 12), with the mean age of 44.5 (ranged from 25 to 69). All self-identified as LGBTQ (e.g., lesbians, gay men, trans men). Most were cisgender females (n = 11), whereas two cisgender males, two trans males, and one genderqueer also participated.

Although much of past research used variable-focused analyses (Masten, 2014) to quantitatively study discrete resilience resources (e.g., Ryan et al., 2010), a person-focused analysis (Masten, 2014) was used for this study to closely examine the lives of “resilient” LGBTQ youth and their social contexts. Using the “nomination” strategy recommended for a person-focused resilience study in a specific sociocultural context (Theron et al., 2011; Ungar et al., 2007), SP were asked to nominate youth who (a) self-identified as LGBTQ, (b) were ages 16 to 24, and (c) experienced significant adversities but are relatively “doing well.” Given that the study purpose was to explicate the constructs of resilience, no explicit markers of “significant adversities” or “doing well” were provided to openly elicit participants’ perspectives. Youth were also asked to nominate other “resilient” peers for the study. This resulted in 19 youth participants, with the mean age of 20.5 (ranged from 16 to 24). Youth used diverse LGBTQ identities, including lesbian, gay, bisexual, pansexual, queer, genderqueer, two-spirited, and trans. Their gender identities were also diverse, including cisgender female (n = 4), cisgender male (n = 3), trans-female (n = 1), trans-male (n = 5), and genderqueer (n = 6). Their racial identities included White (n = 8), Asian (n = 3), Black (n = 2), and mixed race, including Aboriginal heritage (n = 6). Although only three youth were born outside Canada, almost half of the youths (n = 9) identified as children of immigrants.

Data Collection and Analysis

All interviews with SP (n = 16) and youth (n = 19) were conducted by this researcher. Each interview lasted from 45 minutes to 2 hours 2 minutes. No honoraria were offered to paid SP, whereas CAN$20 honoraria were offered to volunteer SP and youth. The interview questions that generated the data used for this article are summarized in Table 1.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Semi-Structured Interview Guide.

Interview questions (SP)

Interview questions (youth)

“What do you think are adversities commonly experienced by today’s LGBTQ youth? How do you think that they are experiencing such adversities?” “What does ‘doing well’ look like for LGBTQ youth? How do you know that LGBTQ youth are ‘doing well’ despite their experience of significant adversity? What kind of indicators do you have to know that LGBTQ youth are ‘doing well’?”

“Resilience is generally understood as ‘doing well in the face of adversity.’ You have been invited to participate in this study because someone else thought that you were a ‘resilient’ youth. What is your understanding of how someone thought that you were a ‘resilient’ LGBTQ youth?” “Thinking about yourself and your LGBTQ peers, what do you think are challenges or difficulties LGBTQ youth are experiencing? Can you tell me how you and/or your peers have experienced these challenges?” “What does ‘doing well’ mean to you and other LGBTQ youth? How can others in your life (e.g., adults, friends) be assured that you are ‘doing well’ despite challenges?”

Note. SP = service provider; LGBTQ = lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, and queer.

Coding methods from grounded theory methodology (Charmaz, 2006; Strauss & Corbin, 1990) were used for the simultaneous analysis of SP and youth data. After the interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim, transcribed data were imported to Dedoose, a computer assisted qualitative data analysis software, for coding. During initial, line-by-line coding (Charmaz, 2006), the interview data were labeled with discrete codes for inductive analysis. In focused coding (Charmaz, 2006), which is the next more conceptual level of coding, the data were organized based on which and how the initial codes would be grouped together to explain the larger data. For instance, 18 initial codes (e.g., experiencing transphobia, childhood abuse) that signified a variety of adversities resulted in the forming of the category of “facing adversities across contexts” and its associated three sub-categories. Although this process resulted in eight categories, this article focuses on two of these categories and the associated sub-categories, which are directly related to the purpose of this article (i.e., conceptualization of resilience and its related constructs). Constant comparative methods (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) were used to highlight both similarities and differences within and across cases (e.g., SP vs. youth, youth vs. youth). Data source triangulation of comparing SP and youth data, audit trail of the data analysis processes, thick description of participants’ experiences and social environments, and peer consultation were used to enhance trustworthiness (Marshall & Rossman, 2011).

Facing Adversities Across Contexts

Lived experiences of LGBTQ youth are in some ways very much like any other youth and in other ways are very much unique to being LGBTQ. Facing adversities across contexts signifies that LGBTQ youth experience both general and LGBTQ-specific adversities across time (current and earlier childhood) and contexts (homes, schools, communities). Three emergent sub-categories are reported in this section: (a) early childhood experience, (b) family acceptance–rejection of youths’ emerging LGBTQ identities, and (c) social marginalization in schools and communities.

Just like any other youth, LGBTQ youth in this study reported a range of early childhood experiences. Some had relatively easier upbringings and family relationships, whereas for others, childhood consisted of poverty, abuse, family violence, and out-of-home care. For most youths, however, childhood was neither all positive nor all negative, and their life circumstances changed over time. Although one youth recalled “a really happy childhood” and “didn’t have . . . any abuse or hardship” as a young child, he then saw significant changes as a result of immigration: “Suddenly when we came to Canada . . . [saw] our family struggling with money . . . our parents fighting” (Y09). Another youth lived under extreme poverty as a child:

My father worked at CAN$14 an hour. We were broke and go on for months at a time not eating a lot besides rice. We moved around a lot because we weren’t able to hold onto any of our homes. (Y14)

The same youth, however, also fondly remembered his childhood because of the close family relationship, and his family connectedness remained critical for his continued positive outlook on life: “A lot of bad things happened to my family, but my family has always been a strong undercurrent.”

Although LGBTQ youth can have a range of early childhood experiences just like any other youth, their social environments diverged from youth in general when others perceived them as LGBTQ or youth acknowledged their own emerging LGBTQ identities. The nature of youths’ early childhood (e.g., positive, negative) did not predict the family reactions to their emerging LGBTQ identities (e.g., acceptance, rejection). Youth reported varied family reactions to their LGBTQ identities, ranging from complete rejection to full acceptance. For some youth, families played a positive role in supporting their LGBTQ identities: “My sexuality . . . wasn’t really an issue. I was lucky” (Y15); “My parents were extremely progressive and they never genderized my toys and let me do, wear, or be whatever I wanted” (Y14). On the other end of the spectrum, one gay male youth reported a difficult family relationship since his “coming out”: “My dad’s first response was, ‘we should have never come to Canada’ . . . [As] the oldest son, [my parents have] lots of high hopes. ‘We sacrificed our resources . . . so you can have a good future’” (Y02).

Family rejection of youths’ LGBTQ identities occurs through physical and/or emotional means: “Often youth either run away or are kicked out. Or ‘frozen out,’ where . . . youth felt like they had no choice but to leave because they couldn’t stay under the rules that the parents had set” (SP06). In fact, youth interviews revealed a range of ways such family rejection took place, from the silencing of the topic to verbal, physical, and even sexual assault. Although most youth experienced family rejection, some nonetheless chose to stay and face the difficulties with their families and others ended up leaving home. A close look at the youth data, however, did not reveal a clear-cut relationship between the type of family rejection outcomes (e.g., leaving home, staying connected) and youths’ self-reported current well-being. Furthermore, family attitudes toward youths’ LGBTQ identities might not remain constant. One 22-year-old youth who felt that there was no choice but to move out of home at age 17 when he came out as trans observed the changes in his family attitudes over time:

My father and I didn’t speak for about 4 years. There were a couple of times when we tried to reconcile. But when he learned that I was planning on medically transitioning and . . . starting testosterone and a top surgery, we stopped talking again. But over the last year, he has apologized and wants to work things out. (Y10)

Family acceptance–rejection does not occur in a vacuum, it resides within larger social contexts. Participants highlighted how pervasive anti-LGBTQ attitudes remain in schools and communities. Homophobia and transphobia were reported to take place in many forms (e.g., verbal, physical, sexual, cyber) and threaten youths’ safety in schools and communities: “In my Grade 10 civics class, one kid [said], ‘if my brother was gay, I’d beat him up.’ But the teachers didn’t do anything about it” (Y01); “[I was] experiencing such hate from people online and I didn’t even feel safe going to school . . . I did not know who was saying this stuff” (Y03). Positive changes in schools were also reported. Most youth reported the presence of gay–straight alliances in their schools, which is one of the well-known resilience resources for LGBTQ youth (Hatzenbuehler et al., 2014). Some had teachers who interrupted anti-LGBTQ comments and behaviors in schools. Some who had difficulties in regular classrooms had successful experiences attending a classroom designed for LGBTQ students.

Although homophobia remains pervasive and affects LGB youth, the data revealed extensive prejudice, discrimination, and violence trans youth experienced on a daily basis. In fact, each of the 12 youth who did not identify as cisgender emphasized safety concerns associated with the public bathroom use. One SP who has worked extensively with trans youth used public bathrooms, which are generally divided into two genders (male and female), as an example of how transphobia plays out and negatively affects youth:

Public bathrooms are a source of fear . . . Not just for trans but for anyone (that) doesn’t fit the [binary gender] norms . . . If they’re seen as not fitting the [binary gender] norms, those bathrooms are a location of abuse, harassment, and tremendous fear . . . Every time you need to take care of physical need, you have to risk facing danger. (SP12)

In addition to public bathrooms, trans youth reported discriminations in larger social institutions, such as health care, housing, and employment sectors. One trans-male who sought medical transitions recalled traumatizing experiences with a medical provider:

(I was) scrutinized . . . I was constantly fighting . . . just to prove that I identified as male though I had previously identified that way for years . . . I learned . . . that the medical system was not safe . . . it was help being disguised as help but it was actually making me feel worse about myself. (Y03)

Another trans youth with a university degree shared employment-related discrimination: “My biggest barrier (is) finding a job . . . because this is where I experience the most discrimination . . . I don’t even get a job interview . . . unless it’s at a queer organization” (Y8).

In addition to experiencing LGBTQ-specific marginalization, other marginal social locations (e.g., being a person of color, newcomer) also affect many youth. Like the general youth population in Toronto (City of Toronto, 2013), LGBTQ youth come from diverse backgrounds of race, class, gender, and other social locations. Canada is a new home for many LGBTQ youth who sought political asylum from their home countries that criminalize LGBTQ citizens (Lee & Brotman, 2011). A SP who works extensively with LGBTQ youth who migrated to Canada on their own to seek physical and/or psychological safety offered insight into these youths’ complex experience of marginalization:

[For LGBTQ refugee youth] the immigration officer is probably the first person they come out to . . . And having to go through the process of proving that you’re queer or trans [to have their refugee claim approved] is quite stressful and difficult. And you come with a hope that you can be yourself. But when you walk down the street and someone says something racist. And that’s really heartbreaking. (SP16)

“Doing Well” While Still in Pain

The category of “doing well while still in pain” highlights the emotional pain deeply felt in the stories of youth participants. Even though these youth were nominated for their resilience and saw themselves to be relatively doing well, they emphasized their continued struggles with various psychosocial vulnerabilities, such as school absence, relationship difficulties, struggles with depression and anxiety, past suicide attempts, poverty, and lack of stable housing. Although some youth named a “turning point” (e.g., leaving home, attending college) and its positive influence for their well-being as often reported in general youth resilience literature (e.g., Werner & Smith, 1982), a close data analysis confirmed that these turning points alone did not dramatically enhance youths’ well-being. Although a turning point might have opened up more opportunities and contributed to positive changes among these resilient youth, youth nonetheless continued to experience adversities and struggle every day.

SP and youth both articulated the association between youths’ psychosocial vulnerabilities and their experiences of marginalization across families, schools, and/or communities that are “not going away tomorrow” (SP09). One lesbian youth, for instance, explained her mental health within the context of her experiences of marginalization: “My social anxiety is really affected by social norms (of) gender and sexuality and how I really felt like a misfit based on that . . . that ‘oh, I’m different than these people . . . I’m different and perceived as wrong and not as good’” (Y01). This sentiment was corroborated by a queer woman of color: “It was the queer thing. It was the Muslim thing. It was the ‘not fitting in’ . . . coming out and losing faith . . . It was so much going on that it just caused me to be really depressed” (Y6).

Transphobia threatens the well-being of trans and gender non-conforming youth. The youth who experienced prejudice and discrimination within the health care system stressed how impactful transphobia can be on one’s sense of self: “[I learned that] trans is . . . bad . . . Any time someone thought I was trans, I said no . . . because being cis(gender) is safe and being trans is dangerous. I’m still unlearning that” (Y03). Other trans and gender non-conforming youth shed light on the accumulated impact on their well-being when one’s gender is not respected by others (i.e., “misgendering”):

[Being misgendered] is like a bee buzzing around your head. I had an entire day where someone kept referring to me as a girl . . . It got to the point . . . there were way too many bees around me and I broke down. (Y12)

“Every time [teachers misgender me] I have to walk out of the classroom because I get really upset. I missed almost half my semester because I couldn’t bring myself to go to class because I’m being consistently [misgendered]” (Y7).

SP and youth both endorsed a context-dependent understanding of “doing well.” Being resilient and LGBTQ means that youth continue to “show up every day” (SP01), “[being] able to get out of bed” (SP10), and “having hope for the future” (SP05), knowing that they must continue to struggle to exist within their marginalized lived realities. The following story about a youth who experienced daily harassment and bullying shows a context-dependent relationship between adversity and positive adaptation: “[The youth] would often threat suicide, [so that she can] go into the youth jail for a night or two (because) it was safer there” (SP06). One SP who works with trans youth further elaborated this contextual understanding:

For [trans] youth I work with, just being able to get out there every day is “doing well.” Just being able to navigate the world every day is doing well. And when I see them coming to the groups, that’s doing well because they are getting themselves out there. (SP16)

Youth rejected the normative definitions of positive adaptation such as the absence of psychopathologies and school success. As evidenced by the choice of phrases such as “still struggling” (Y08), “battling through” (Y12), “still fighting” (Y09), and “[having] your head above water” (Y15), youth underlined their experience of pain associated with courageously working through adversity. For one youth (Y07) who had used “cutting” as a coping skill for a long time, for instance, cutting sometimes comes back unexpectedly when anti-LGBTQ discriminations occur on a seemingly normal day. Another youth (Y05) stressed that “doing well” is not about eliminating stress, depression, or anxiety but about knowing when support is needed and taking active steps to take care of the self. Similarly, although one youth prefaced that “it’s hard to see myself as resilient when you’re constantly fighting and constantly having to survive,” the importance of celebrating the act of “showing up” as extraordinary was emphasized: “I congratulate myself for going to school . . . and work[ing]. When I look at others doing that, I would be like, ‘that’s awesome, that’s amazing!’ But most of the time I still feel the weight of trauma” (Y03).