Elements of Minority Stress and Resilience in LGBTQ+ Students’ Experience of Education

ABSTRACT

This study investigates the experiences of minority stress and resilience among LGBTQ+ students in educational settings and identifies critical contributors to their well-being. To highlight the unique educational experiences of LGBTQ+ participants a qualitative research strategy was employed. We conducted narrative interviews with 27 LGBTQ+ people aged 17 to 41 who are or have been enrolled in primary, secondary or tertiary education in Slovenia. The results indicate that minority stress is a significant in their educational experiences, with various deleterious effects. The testimonies of our respondents indicate, albeit to a lesser extent, that the education system can enhance the resilience of LGBTQ+ youth and mitigate the negative impacts of minority stress. This study confirms prior research on minority stress effects on LGBTQ+ individuals. It asserts that LGBTQ+ youth experience minority stress within the education system, while emphasizing that certain aspects of resilience can significantly mitigate these negative effects. As social support emerged as a significant factor in our study, it would be reasonable to investigate how school personnel can enhance LGBT youths’ resilience in the future. Additionally, it would be beneficial to investigate how the support of peers and (chosen) families influences the school experiences of LGBTQ+ students.

KEYWORDS:

• LGBTQ+ students
• educational system
• experiences
• minority stress, distal processes
• proximal processes
• resilience

Introduction

Continued discrimination, exclusion, and violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer people (LGBTQ+) have resulted in numerous challenges in various aspects of their life including education. LGBTQ+ students face particular challenges both academically and socially (Johns et al., 2021; McDanal et al., 2021; Witcomb et al., 2019). These challenges manifest themselves in the form of increased stress, which leads to physical (Bränström, 2017; Frost et al., 2015; Herman, 2013) and mental health problems (Hoy-Ellis, 2021; Jadva et al., 2023; Weeks et al., 2023), poor academic performance (Herman, 2013; Robinson, 2021) and a sense of alienation within the educational environment (Hatchel et al., 2019).

Meyer’s Minority Stress Model (Meyer, 1995, 2003, 2013, 2015) explains the causal relationships between the chronic stress experienced by the LGBTQ+ community and the social processes of injustice, discrimination, violence, stigmatization, etc. that they experience as a result of their marginalized status. Minority stress refers to the ongoing stress experienced by members of minority groups living in a society that stigmatizes their identities. The same applies to the educational context: LGBTQ+ students who face discrimination, bullying and other forms of prejudice from their peers and teachers may experience increased minority stress. However, resilience theory (Meyer, 2015) explains that the outcomes of these processes are not always negative, as LGBTQ+ people develop resilience and thrive despite the obstacles they face due to their marginalized status. Understanding the experiences of LGBTQ+ students in education is critical to ensuring equity in education.

We examined the experiences of LGBTQ+ individuals in the Slovenian educational system using retrospective narratives and contextualized them within the relevant literature on minority stress and resilience. While the Slovenian education system is obligated to general inclusion and protection of minority groups students (Krek in Metljak, 2011; ZOFVI, 1996), there is no strategies on national level that address LGBTQ+ issues specific, which hinders LGBTQ+ ability to live authentically and affects their academic success and their mental and physical health (Ferbežar et al., 2023; Sešek & Margon, 2021). The country’s approach to LGBTQ+ rights is characterized by a dynamic political climate, with progress on anti-discrimination and partnership rights alongside conflicting social debates. An important legislative milestone was achieved in 2011 with a family law granting same-sex couples the right to adopt, although it met with strong opposition and was overturned by referendum in 2012. Major progress was made in 2022 when adoption rights for same-sex couples were finally legalized, indicating a shift toward more progressive social norms. Kuhar and Švab (2023) explain the everyday life of lesbians and gays in Slovenia in more detail. Despite Slovenia’s relative progressiveness, our study reveals significant protection gaps for the LGBTQ+ population in education, a problem that extends beyond Slovenia. Understanding the Slovenian context helps to understand the global patterns of minority stress and the need for customized solutions. Due to Slovenia’s dynamic political climate, our considerations are relevant for countries developing LGBTQ+ specific rights in education and those where they are threatened by conservative policies.

The primary objective of this study is to investigate the key aspects of minority stress faced by LGBTQ+ students in educational contexts. To achieve this, we have formulated the following research questions:

• What are the main aspects of minority stress faced by LGBTQ+ students in the educational context?

• What factors contribute to the resilience of LGBTQ+ students when faced with minority stress in these contexts?

The minority stress model by Meyer

This study employs Minority Stress Theory (Meyer, 1995, 2003, 2013) to analyze the educational experiences of LGBTQ+ students. First, minority stress theory provides a framework for comprehending how chronic stress can negatively impact the well-being of marginalized individuals, such as LGBTQ+ students in education. Second, the theory of resilience emphasizes the significance of protective factors, such as social support and coping strategies, in promoting positive outcomes in the face of adversity.

Distal processes of minority stress

Violence, discrimination, microaggressions, and other processes of inequality (stigma, prejudice, and stereotypes) are distal stresses that LGBTQ+ youth experience in education, which educators should consider. Studies from global West (e. g. Bry et al., 2018; Johns et al., 2021; Robinson, 2021; Witcomb et al., 2019), including Slovenia (e. g. Perger et al., 2018; Sešek & Margon, 2021; Smrdelj & Podreka, 2022), show that violence includes social exclusion, verbal, physical, online, peer, and family violence. Due to internalized stigma, LGBTQ+ youth frequently blame themselves for violence (Dewaele et al., 2013) and minimize its significance, as shown by Slovenian research (Koletnik, 2019; Kuhar & Švab, 2014; Perger et al., 2018). This inhibits minority stress coping and reduces the reporting of cases of violence in education (Johns et al., 2021; Woodford et al., 2014). Research conducted in Slovenia uncovered the following reasons why LGBTQ+ adolescent violence is not reported: 1) Uncertainty that the school will respond; 2) Doubts about the effectiveness of the measures; 3) Desire to avoid whistleblower status; 4) Fear of disclosure (Sešek & Margon, 2021); and 5) Belief that the violence was not severe enough (Koletnik, 2019).

Proximal processes of minority stress

Proximal stressors arise in response to distal stressors to which LGBTQ+ students attribute meaning. These internal processes (anticipation of rejection, concealment of stigma, internalized stigma) thus arise as responses to external sources of stress (Meyer, 2003, 2013). Due to experiences with distal stressors during their education, many LGBTQ+ students report feelings of constant fear for their safety (Glazzard & Stones, 2021; Johns et al., 2021). They employ a variety of strategies to mitigate these expectations and conceal their LGBTQ+ identity to ensure their safety at school, leading to mental preoccupation and psychological and physical exhaustion (Rood et al., 2016). Ferbežar et al. (2023) emphasize the need for educational institutions to address expectations of rejection because it contradicts the principles of equality in education. This situation forces LGBTQ+ students to devote a significant amount of their time to ensuring their safety instead of focusing on their academic success. The final type of proximal process is internalized stigma, which can be described as internalized negative messages from their environment, including education (Meyer, 2003, 2013). These feelings of internalized stigma increase the likelihood of the onset of depressive and anxiety symptoms (Chodzen et al., 2019) and social anxiety (Edwards & Sylaska, 2013).

Meyer’s definition of resilience

In addition to the stressors for minorities mentioned earlier, it is important to consider factors that mitigate the negative effects of stress on LGBTQ+ individuals. These are referred to as resilience processes and protective factors, which include defensive strategies, institutional interventions, and social networks. Resilience differs from stress management in that it always reduces the impact of stressors on the individual. Meyer (2015) describes individual and community resilience processes.

Individual resilience processes

Individual resilience processes such as motivation, personality traits and worldview are known to help LGBTQ+ individuals cope with minority stress (Meyer, 2015). Young people in education can effectively manage minority stress by exhibiting humor and confidence, recognizing cultural and generational differences, being self-aware of their abilities, and assertively defending their rights (Johns et al., 2021). However, the exclusive focus on individual resilience processes can lead to a discourse that blames those who cannot respond to stress with resilience and minimizes the significance of collective responsibility for protecting vulnerable groups (Meyer, 2015). For education, this means that educators should not only focus on how to promote resilience in students. They should also ensure a safe school environment where the resilience of LGBTQ+ students is not needed.

Community resilience processes

A socially focused approach strengthens the resilience of LGBTQ+ youth through community resources and changing values and norms (Meyer, 2015). Tangible resources include documents, organizations, and role models, while intangible resources include greater respect for the LGBTQ+ community (Meyer, 2015). When LGBTQ+ people are safely disclosed within social structures and when support is based on gender and sexual orientation, social support is especially effective. For example, a safe school environment has been shown to reduce self-harm and suicide attempts among LGBTQ+ students (Jadva et al., 2023). Effective protective factors within the education system include inclusive practices such as the use of correct pronouns and names, gender-neutral facilities, symbols of respect for LGBTQ+ people, and space and resources for support and advocacy (Woodford et al., 2014). In Slovenia, a major obstacle to LGBT-inclusive education is the lack of LGBT±specific protections in national policy documents. This lack of relevant policy documents can have a negative impact in practice, as Bradlow et al. (2017) show. Their study demonstrates that the likelihood of peer violence based on sexual orientation is lower in schools with policies that explicitly condemn homophobic and biphobic violence than in schools that do not directly condemn this type of violence. A general lack of systemic solutions to protect LGBTQ+ people result in limited support networks and unequal opportunities for LGBTQ+ youth, negatively impacting their academic experiences and sense of safety. Without specific laws to protect LGBTQ+ rights in educational institutions, support depends on individual educators, often resulting in unequal treatment and invisibility of LGBTQ+ students. The silence and lack of systematic support exacerbate problems, including safe access to facilities, and affect the well-being of LGBTQ+ students and their ability to seek help in the education system (Ferbežar et al., 2023; Sešek & Margon, 2021). Precisely because the education system lacks formal support for LGBTQ+ students, NGOs such as Ljubljana Pride and Legebitra have filled this important gap in Slovenia. They provide vital support to LGBTQ+ youth and educational institutions, taking on tasks ranging from educating teachers about LGBTQ+ issues to promoting an inclusive school environment. This situation highlights a systemic problem in Slovenian education and emphasizes the lack of regulatory measures and proactive support for LGBTQ+ students. While the efforts of NGOs are invaluable, they also emphasize the need for systemic change and the development of comprehensive school policies to ensure that LGBTQ+ students receive the support they need directly from their educational institutions.

Our study aims to show how minority stress and resilience of LGBTQ+ students manifest themselves in the Slovenian education system. With this new empirical data, we close the knowledge gap on minority stressors in education, a topic that has not yet been researched in the Slovenian context. At the same time, we describe concrete strategies to mitigate minority stressors and promote resilience in education that may be relevant globally or can be adapted to work in different cultural contexts. Furthermore, our study adds to the research pool on minority stress in education and contributes to understanding the particular challenges faced by LGBTQ+ students in different regions and cultures.

Methodology

The focus of this study is on the unique and complex experiences of LGBTQ+ students in educational settings. We used a qualitative research approach, which we chose to foreground the individual educational experiences of the LGBTQ+ individuals involved.

Data and sample

We recruited participants through purposive quota selection because we wanted our sample to reflect all of the identities included in the LGBTQ+ acronym. Recruitment of participants began with the support of LGBTQ+ specific organization and their social media profiles and continued through snowball sampling. We included people under the age of 45 who identify as LGBTQ+ and have participated in the Slovenian education system at some point in their lives. 27 LGBTQ+ people from all Slovenian provinces were included in the study. Regarding the number of people involved, we followed guidelines of Hennink et al. (2020) to determine code saturation and meaning saturation. Since our study focus was very specific and our study population quite homogeneous, we did not need many participants before we reached the stage where no significant new issues emerged that would broaden our understanding of the topic (Hennink et al., 2020). The summary of the sample characteristics can be seen in Table 1. Our participants were between 17 and 41 years old. We wanted to include the perspectives of young LGBTQ+ people who were still in education at the time the study was conducted, as well as the retrospective perspectives of adult LGBTQ+ people who had already completed their education. The retrospective perspectives of the adults were important for three reasons: 1) They provide an insight into the possible consequences of the experiences in education. 2) They offer a different viewpoint shaped by life experience and the fact that they are no longer directly involved in education. 3) The inclusion of LGBTQ+ minors in the study involves important ethical considerations that still pose some dilemmas, often limiting the ability to publish the results, which is an ethical requirement when conducting studies, especially with marginalized groups.

Table 1. Individual descriptive characteristics (N = 27).

	n
Overall	27
Sexual orientation
Gay	12
Lesbian	7
Bisexual	7
Heterosexual	1
Gender
Cisgender men	13
Cisgender women	9
Non-binary persons	2
Transgender women	2
Questioning	1
Age
Under 25	6
25–35	10
Over 35	11

Therefore, we only included one underage person who was 17 years old. We included this person because they displayed great maturity, were only one month away from their 18th birthday, showed a personal interest in participating in the study and had a strong need to share their experiences.

The experiences described relate to all levels of education (primary, secondary and tertiary), including residential care institution. These out-of-home institutions are part of the Slovenian education system and are intended for young people who are placed there mainly for three reasons: because the parental home is not safe for them, because they have broken the law, or because they have been diagnosed with an emotional or behavioral disorder. Our interviewee, who lived there at the time of the interview, stated that she was there for the first reason.

Interview procedure

We gathered participants by contacting the Slovenian LGBTQ+ organization (Legebitra), which conducts activities for young people in all parts of Slovenia. The organization forwarded our invitation to their members and thus helped us recruit participants for the study. We also recruited some participants through the snowball method, where we asked our respondents to pass on our invitation to participate in the study to their LGBTQ+ acquaintances.

We collected data from April to December 2021 using an individual narrative interview. In advance, we created a guide for the interview that included the general topics we wanted to address during the interview. The first and larger part of the interview consisted of the individuals’ free narration as they responded to the invitation to talk about their experiences with education. The second part of the interview also included (sub)questions to gather additional information on the topics mentioned by the interviewees (e.g. “You mentioned that you need to pay attention to the way you walk. What did you mean by that?”). Our goal was to let the interviewees speak freely about their experiences to a large extent, without the interviewer directing and constraining them with their questions. Before we began data collection, we also conducted a test interview with an LGBTQ+ person. After the interview, we made minimal changes to the guide and discarded the data collected. We then made initial contact with potential participants. Participation in the study was voluntary, which participants acknowledged by signing a written informed consent statement. They received no compensation for participating in the study.

The epidemiological picture dictated by COVID-19 had an impact on data collection, as the live meetings were more difficult than under normal conditions. However, we permitted participants to choose the interview method that best suits them. 13 respondents opted for a face-to-face meeting, while the remaining 14 chose an interview via the online platform Zoom. The in-person interviews, which were all conducted in Slovenian, took place at the location and time suggested by the interviewees. The interview was recorded for later transcription, and we also took note of conversational elements (emotions, posture, facial expressions, etc.) that could not be captured on the audio.

Analytical procedure

The data was coded using a qualitative thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2013). We transcribed all interviews and read them carefully before beginning the analysis, which was conducted by one researcher.

The analysis began with a coding manual based on Meyer’s Minority Stress Model (Meyer, 1995, 2003, 2013, 2015), making the coding process primarily deductive. It had two primary themes: minority stress and resilience. Minority stress was then divided into distal and proximal stressor categories (expectations of rejection, concealment, internalized stigma). Individual and community-based forms of resilience have been distinguished. After preparing the codebook, all the data was loaded into Nvivo so the coding procedure could begin. With the inductive method, additional codes emerged. Data analyst discovered the following codes within the category of distal stressors: violence and discrimination, hatred and prejudice, normativity, and invisibility. In the category of individual resilience: knowledge, personal qualities, and future optimism. In the category of community-based resilience: friends, school personnel, family, school climate, and LGBTQ+ organizations. The overall coding structure is depicted in Table 2.

Table 2. Coding framework.

Themes	Categories	Codes	Examples
Minority stress	Distal	violence and discrimination hatred and prejudice normativity and invisibility	“/ … / I know that no matter how you whine, cry, they are just going to keep doing it. And a [person’s name] hit me like that once. A huge slap on the back. That hurt me so much. And I just did that [exhales barely audible]. I just did that. You know how I was screaming inside.”^a
	Proximal	expectations of rejection concealment internalized stigma	“But you know, I am much more careful about who I talk to and when. In which cases I should be open, if at all. Because you never know what a person’s intentions are. This insecurity will always remain with me.”
Resilience	Individual-based resilience	knowledge personal characteristics hope for the future	“But thank god, by that time I knew some basic things. I knew what homophobia was, what transphobia meant. How to react to it.”
	Community-based resilience	friends school personnel family school climate LGBTQ+ organizations	“The positive experience was that I was fortunate to have a class behind me that stood by me through thick and thin. They stood up for me. However, I do not recall the school offering me anything on LGBTQ+ issues that made me feel better represented or safer.

^aExamples are meant for the first bullet point in the list of codes in each category.

Results

The study shows that minority stress is an important part of LGBTQ+ students’ educational experience that has many negative effects. However, albeit to a lesser extent, the testimonies of our respondents also show that there are ways in which the education system can strengthen the resilience of LGBTQ+ youth and limit the impact of minority stress.

Minority stress

Distal stressors

Distal stressors can be identified in a variety of events, which we have grouped into the following three categories: violence and discrimination, hatred and prejudice, and normativity and invisibility.

Violence and discrimination were mentioned in nearly all interviews. Respondents spoke of physical (beatings, punches, pricking with sharp objects), psychological (social exclusion, gaslighting about experiences of violence, stalking), verbal (insults, hurtful comments, inappropriate and hurtful questions about their gender, threats of violence and murder, misgendering), sexual (involuntary touching, e.g. to determine if someone is “a girl or a boy”) and cyberviolence (threats, hurtful photoshopped images), most of which were perpetrated by peers. With the exception of cyberviolence, some instances of violence by school staff were also mentioned. Some LGBTQ+ individuals reported being the target of daily violence during their school years: “From second grade to ninth grade, I got beat up practically every day” (Nicole, 17 years old), whereas others reported one or more such experiences. Nonetheless, all participants reported their fear of experiencing violence at school, for example Luke (24) said: “When I was in elementary school, I was honestly very scared.” In reference to receiving more challenging schoolwork and discrimination, Matthew (33) mentioned:

But I do not think anyone went so far as to throw me out of the exam for being gay. But if I had thought a little more maturely at the time, I would have been able to prove, or at least reasonably suspect, that I was … that they were making some things harder for me than for everybody else.

And in the context of toilet use, when schools did not allow transgender students to use the preferred toilet, a transgender girl Nicole (17) described:

In elementary school, I pretty soon tried to fight to be allowed to use women’s toilet. Of course, that did not work out so well. At that time I did not use the toilet at school for 4 years.

A significant distal stressor reported by respondents was incidents of hate and prejudice directed not necessarily at them personally, but at LGBTQ+ people as an entity. This was highlighted by Tom (41) saying “It was directed at the general [LGBTQ+] issue, you know. But it still hurt me because you are aware of these things..” During the time when a referendum was held in Slovenia on a law that would allow same-gender partnerships to marry and have children, these types of distal stressors were felt especially strongly, suggesting that current political events may also affect the well-being of LGBTQ+ students in education. There were examples of teachers openly expressing their prejudices, such as the belief that LGBTQ+ couples were not “natural,” but most of the hatred came from peers who opposed the equality law¹ and even associated same-gender individuals with pedophilia. Sam (21) also reported that their classmates were collecting signatures to express their opposition to the proposed law at school. Many participants also mentioned that some members of the LGBTQ+ community faced more hostility than others. People whose gender expression did not match their assigned gender were in this position. These people were more likely to be targets of hate and violence, for example Finn (36) described: “If someone appeared more feminine, he got picked on right away.”

Normativity and invisibility are also significant sources of stress. The majority of LGBTQ+ respondents reported that LGBTQ±related issues are rarely discussed in school, and even when they are, they are frequently treated negatively. When students expressed prejudice or requested to discuss LGBTQ+ topics, some respondents reported that teachers actively refused to address these issues. This overwhelming silence contributed to feelings of identity confusion, shame, feeling that something was wrong with them, doubts about their lifestyle, fear of coming out, feelings of exclusion, loneliness, and identity invalidity, as Zara (39) described:

It was negative. The fear of coming out became stronger because it is not even mentioned. As if it did not exist. / … / There is no LGBTQ+ community. And on top of that, this revulsion by peers. The fear, of course, accumulated. The feeling of being different, of not being acceptable to existing society.

In addition to the silence surrounding LGBTQ+ issues, which normalized heterosexuality and cisgenderness, normativity was evident in restrooms, locker rooms, and sport classes that only accommodated cisgender and binary identities, leaving LGBTQ+ individuals without safe spaces. As previously mentioned, the issue was restrooms that could only be used by the assigned gender at birth and did not permit transgender students to use their preferred restroom. Only one person mentioned the presence of gender-inclusive restrooms, and they were very pleased with this option. More respondents expressed the need for such a restroom or the ability to choose their preferred restroom. Additionally, transgender girl Nicole (17) commented on the solution of using the school staff restroom. She felt this was preferable to being forced to use the boys’ restroom, but felt it avoided the real issue: “In the given situation, I saw it as avoiding the problem, but I accepted the option offered so as not to have more problems.”

Proximal stressors

In this chapter we focus on proximal stressors in the following order expectations of rejection, concealment, and internalized stigma. While distal stressors relate to the wider school community and are relevant to most school staff, proximal stressors are particularly relevant to school counselors and school psychologists who work more closely with individuals. This is especially true for interventions outside of prevention that target the psychological impact of negative experiences at school.

LGBTQ+ individuals are very overwhelmed with the expectation of various types of rejection such as social exclusion, hatred, violence, disgust, disappointment, discrimination (e.g., unfair grading), and rejection when they ask the school for help in cases of violence/discrimination. This type of mental preoccupation also causes them to alter their behavior to avoid disclosing their LGBTQ+ status and thereby reduce the likelihood of rejection. Fear and the realization that this will always be a part of their lives accompanied the mental process of anticipating rejection, which was reflected in Sam’s (21) comment:

Sometimes I am scared when I think about it. [To himself] “Shit, this is going to be my whole life. You’ll be scared your whole life.” Really. Meeting people, what will they think of you, will you get a job, will people you need like you. I am afraid to come out publicly because I am afraid it will have a negative effect on my career.

They feared that their lives would be simplified due to their sexual orientation and that their many talents and accomplishments would be overlooked. And that their families would also be subject to discrimination. For example, Veronica (38) said: “Because it affects your life. It affects your family. My mother had her own business. If people knew about me …”

Due to these expectations, many of them were extremely cautious when in groups of people. They paid attention to how they dressed, how they walked, how they moved their hands, how their voice sounded, what they said in conversations, how they complimented, what opinions they expressed, and they also prepared themselves specifically for a certain group of people they knew they would hang out with later (e.g., they Googled football facts to avoid attracting attention and revealing their sexuality), or they avoided certain situations or places altogether. Sam (21) illustrated that by saying:

And I definitely felt uncomfortable at times in high school. Am I dressed in a way that I would be laughed at in the first five minutes when I get there? Do you know how many times I bit my tongue during the discussions? Because I told myself, do not expose yourself because you’ll get screwed. Excuse the expression. But it’s true. You will be forced to listen to crap about yourself again.

To reduce the possibility of negative reactions, they also carefully selected their group of friends, which had to be LBGTQ+ or LGBTQ±friendly. They frequently pre-tested individuals to determine how safe they were for LGBTQ+ individuals. Important considerations included the presence of openly LGBTQ+ students at the school and how they were treated. One of the individuals explained that the more you love yourself, the more you isolate yourself in your LGBTQ+ groups to avoid the hatred. On the other hand, some gay men have reported that they avoided being seen with feminine boys at school because they anticipated that they would be the target of violence. To avoid being outed or becoming a target themselves, they avoided that person entirely. Another bisexual boy who identified as more feminine stated that other boys (including those assumed to be heterosexual) avoided his company, so he had no male friends. Also relevant to the transition to other educational settings is social caution. They appeared to weigh the advantages of being able to live an authentic life as an LGBTQ+ individual in school against the potential disadvantages of coming out in the school setting. Transgender girl Nicole (17) explained that she did not anticipate violence, so she came out despite knowing that people would likely not respect her gender and continue to misgender her.

The positive experience of coming out is related to the decreased expectation of rejection. Veronica (38) explained that she anticipated less rejection after encountering numerous positive responses to her LGBTQ+ identity:

Every person I have come out to has reacted positively / … / I think it’s had an impact on me having more confidence now that people are open. More than before.

Negative feedback, on the other hand, appears to cause individuals to anticipate further rejection and become more suspicious. Pam (39) describes the traumatic experience of her mother’s hostile reaction after she came out, and she explains that being rejected by a person who was expected to love you no matter what was extremely negative and had repercussions years later:

The most important person in my life did not take it well. / … /. So, I still have this / … / trauma. A big trauma. Of course it’s a trauma. You are more careful everywhere. Because you never know.

As already indicated, the anticipation of rejection has a close relationship with concealment. People remain hidden precisely because they anticipate being rejected by their surroundings. None of the participants reported being completely honest throughout their entire educational experience. During elementary and secondary school, the majority were only open with their closest friends. Some LGBTQ+ individuals believed that concealing their LGBTQ+ identity was the only way for them to survive their education, so they took great care not to be outed. This prevented them from being genuine with their friends, resulting in a sense of isolation and alienation from the group. For some, this resulted in low self-esteem, feeling that people never liked them for who they really were because they could never reveal their whole selves. It also required them to make numerous compromises to maintain contact with their peer group. Veronica (38), who identifies as lesbian explained that she attempted to discuss boys with her female friends and to develop romantic relationships with them. She stated that she frequently drank alcohol to achieve a more relaxed state. People who attempt to conceal their LGBTQ+ status also described the strategies they employ. We discussed them earlier in the section on anticipating rejection (e.g., paying attention to gestures, voice, walk). Some individuals described it as exhausting to continue lying and pretending, controlling their behavior and walk, and living in constant fear of being discovered. Some also experienced depression because of concealing their LGBTQ+ status for too long, and attributed it to internalized stigma, for example Tina (30) said: “And that was maybe why it was harder to accept myself, it was my first [queer] relationship too”.

Like distant stressors, gender expression plays an important role in the coming out process, according to our respondents. A significant number of respondents stated that coming out was more dangerous for boys with feminine appearances. For example, Linda (25) emphasized: “And I think with that look, in the world we live in, you do have to be very careful to stay alive.” This was mentioned mostly by queer girls who felt privileged in this sense, as the bisexual girl Kate (21) explained:

And in fact, if I were a gay boy, I would probably have a lot more fear in my life. About my physical … About my body. But in this case, because I look feminine, I was never afraid of some guy coming and beating me up for kissing a girl. They just came and wanted to join in, which is another problem. A disgusting one. But at least nothing happens to you and you can get rid of them.

Many also regret not coming out sooner and wish their school environment made it clear that LGBTQ+ students are safe. They were afraid to come out due to the silence, prejudice, and violence. As a result, they missed out on many significant rites of passage for adolescents (e.g., experiencing crushes in the hallways of school, dancing with their sweetheart at the prom) and feel sad about it.

They described it as extremely beneficial for them to see how well outed students were treated at their school. According to them, this indicated that the school was probably safe for them as well. Many individuals desired LGBTQ+ representation in schools because it would demonstrate that LGBTQ+ individuals can also live a normal, open life. They view representation as a source of potential courage and strength to come out. As we’ve already discussed, they describe it as incredibly challenging to constantly conceal their sexuality, for example Zara (39) said:

[On representation] So that I know that they exist. And that they live and walk on the same earth, and therefore I have nothing to fear. I can be successful in life. Even though I am a lesbian, I can show myself to the world as I am. / … / Because that was the hardest thing for me. That pretending. The lack of sincere relationships. I always felt that, this pressure of hiding, of lying, of pretending / … / I could not live that life anymore and that’s why I came out.

After coming out and witnessing the positive responses of the public, they felt a great sense of relief. For example, Felix (20) described it as if a heavy burden had been lifted from their shoulders.

Respondents relate the feeling of internalized stigma to the negative messages they receive from society about the LGBTQ+ community. They emphasized that the process of internalization begins at a very young age, making it more difficult for children to “own up” and come out. They often cited shame and disgust as the strongest emotions associated with internalized stigma. Sam (21) described it as: “A horrible, horrible feeling. When you look in the mirror and you feel disgusted. You know how many times I wished I was straight.” When she realized she was a lesbian, Sadie (42) described two adverse emotions fear and shame: “It was a first thought when I figured it out. Two negative feelings. The first was fear that someone would find out. The second was shame that someone might find out..” For some of them, the process of discovering the truth was traumatic, as they had already internalized all the negative messages. They felt insulted by terms such as gay and lesbian, and they loathed having to refer to themselves in such terms. Luke (24) described feeling ashamed of himself:

Now it’s okay to say I am gay. But for a long time. / … / Because that word has a negative connotation for me. Why do I have to use it for me? / … / This word has affected me. Because I heard it so many times [part of the bullying he experienced]. I think that’s also why it was so hard for me to say it / … /. If I say that word to describe myself, it would mean that I go from here [he raises his hand high above his head] to “there” [he puts his hand down and tries to suppress tears]. Like I am worth less than others. It was really frightening.

The internalized stigma associated with being feminine was especially pervasive among gay boys. They attempted to act masculine (as some of them continue to do as adults) and judged other gay men for being feminine.

Respondents explained that they were alone with these emotions at the time because schools do not typically address LGBTQ+ issues and are not viewed as safe. Many desired direction and optimism for the future.

Resilience

Although minority stress processes were described far more frequently, sources of resilience in education were also mentioned. Individual and then community resilience are discussed.

Individual-based resilience

In the school context, few individual resilience factors were mentioned, namely: knowledge, personal characteristics, and hope for the future. Knowledge of LGBTQ+ issues, such as transphobia and homophobia, enabled them to respond effectively to acts of hatred. Personal characteristics, such as the ability to see the positive in a difficult situation (e.g., the ability to see it as a learning experience, to recognize whom to trust), were also cited as important. Additionally, one respondent mentioned being a good student and having positive relationships with staff, which contributed to a feeling of safety and acceptance. Future optimism was another factor mentioned. It gave them the courage to endure a difficult present because they believed the future would be brighter. For example, Finn (36) said: “And then you say to yourself: ‘I am going to get through this and then I am going to live the way I want to.”

Community-based resilience

Community-based resilience factors that helped them cope with minority stress at school included supportive friends, LGBTQ±friendly school staff, supportive family, an overall safe school climate, and LGBTQ+ organizations. Those who were fortunate enough to have friends at school benefited greatly from this, as their friends frequently stood up for them when hatred arose. It was essential for those interviewed to come out and be accepted for who they are. Others mentioned LGBTQ+ friends outside of school, in one case referring to them as their family of choice. They provide a wider range of support, including housing if the family of origin was unsafe. Staff that welcomes LGBTQ+ students was also cited as a crucial factor. Some of them identified certain teachers as confidantes who provided emotional support when necessary.

Teachers who addressed LGBTQ+ issues, responded to violence and hateful comments, wore LGBTQ±friendly symbols (e.g., a rainbow brooch), respected the chosen name and correct pronouns, were or resembled queer people, and validated different gender expressions were also rated positively. Positive experiences with staff were especially impactful for some because they conveyed the message that being LGBTQ+ is not a bad thing. Another important source of resilience was support from the family of origin, who stood up for their LGBTQ+ children when the school did not respond to the hate and violence the children experienced. The school climate, which was perceived as more open and accepting, gave respondents a stronger sense of security. They identified this type of institution based on the symbols they displayed, their acceptance of diverse marginalized communities, their gender-inclusive restrooms, their approach to LGBTQ+ issues, and their reputation. The final community-based resilience factor is the opportunity to attend LGBTQ+ organizations, which compensated for the lack of psychosocial support typically provided by school counseling. Kate (21) described: “Everything I have figured out, I have figured out in the last couple of years with the help of [name of counsellor from an LGBTQ+ organization].”

Discussion

Participants reported that LGBTQ+ students’ educational experiences are significantly impacted by minority stress, resulting in several detrimental effects. The testimonials of our respondents, while to a lesser extent, also demonstrate that there are means through which the educational system may increase the resilience of LGBTQ+ students and lessen the effects of minority stress.

Interviewees focused more on the negative aspects of their experiences than on the positive, protective aspects. We were able to classify topics related to minority stress into proximal and distal stressors. Distal stressors that we recognized, were violence and discrimination, hatred and prejudice, and normativity and invisibility. Consistent with previous research (Bry et al., 2018; Glazzard & Stones, 2021; Herman, 2013; Horton, 2023; Johns et al., 2021, Price-Feeney et al., 2021; Robinson, 2021; Witcomb et al., 2019), our participants reported experiencing various forms of violence, indicated experiencing discrimination related to using binary restrooms, and highlighted their fear of experiencing violence at school. It stands out that some LGBTQ+ people were beaten every day during their schooling, which could have had a particularly negative impact on their lives. This should be investigated more in future, for example in terms of what circumstances allowed violence to occur so frequently. Participants in our study also reported that gender non-conformity led to more experiences of hostility and discrimination, which is in line with previous research (Miller & Grollman, 2015; Thoma et al., 2021). An interesting aspect that stood out was the sense of privilege felt by queer women who observed this difference in experiences depending on gender expression. Another aspect raised by our participants was discrimination in the context of receiving more difficult schoolwork. This point is also a contribution to existing research and should be further explored in the future.

Invisibility of LGBTQ+ related issues were also a theme that stood out, since they are almost never addressed, or teachers address them in negative ways. When teachers perpetuate heteronormative and cisnormative assumptions, they can become embedded in the course curriculum (Munro et al., 2019). We found that young LGBTQ+ individuals are aware of hatred and prejudice against LGBTQ+ individuals in general, as well as cisnormativity in restrooms, locker rooms, and sports classes that only accommodate cisgender binary identities. In our study, the fear of experiencing violence stood out, regardless of whether people physically experienced violence. The fact that they were LGBTQ+ and perceived negative attitudes toward LGBTQ people in society posed a constant indirect threat of experiencing violence.

Proximal stressors were expectations of rejection, concealment, and internalized stigma. Participants also reported expectations of different types of rejections, such as social exclusion, hatred, violence, disappointment, and discrimination. An aspect raised by our participants, which we did not find in the existing literature, is fear of rejection when they ask school for help in cases of violence. They feel fear and anxiety, adjust their behavior, pay attention to how they are perceived, and carefully select friends. They reported internalized stigma, strong feelings of fear and shame, doubts, feeling lonely and excluded, feeling confused about their identity, feeling that something was wrong with them and fear of coming out. This is in line with previous research that also highlights fear of violence and anticipation of rejection, which leads to negative psychological outcomes (Glazzard & Stones, 2021; Horton, 2023; Johns et al., 2021). Our research also reveals that fear of homophobia affects not only LGBTQ+ people, but also straight individuals who are hesitant to make friends with LGBTQ+ people. This is an important angle in understanding the exclusion and loneliness of LGBTQ+ people.

Although resilience was less prevalent in the responses of our participants, we were able to distinguish between individual-based and community-based resilience. Individual-based resilience includes knowledge, personal characteristics, and future optimism. Consistent with prior studies (Toomey et al., 2018), our findings indicate that knowledge of gender and sexuality-related topics assists LGBTQ+ youth in responding to hateful events. Personal characteristics, such as optimism and conscientiousness, proved to be an important factor alongside future optimism. This corroborates findings from previous research indicating that humor, confidence, social motivation, emotional openness, optimism, and hope are coping factors for minority stress (Hill & Gunderson, 2015; Johns et al., 2021; Meyer, 2015). The themes of community-based resilience include supportive friends, LGBTQ±friendly school staff, supportive family, and a safe school environment. Other authors (Feinstein et al., 2014; Grossman et al., 2021; Hatchel et al., 2019; Jadva et al., 2023; Kwon, 2013) have also emphasized the significance of social support and safe school environment as factors that strengthen resilience and prevent mental health problems. Our results contribute to the existing literature by highlighting the characteristics of teachers and schools that LGBTQ+ young people perceive as safe and LGBT-friendly. Supportive teachers address LGBTQ+ issues, respond to violence and hateful comments, provide emotional support necessary, wear LGBTQ+ friendly symbols (e. g. rainbow brooch), they respect the chosen name and use correct pronouns, validate different gender expressions and they are or appear to be queer. Participants’ schools were safe if they displayed LGBTQ+ symbols, were welcoming to LGBTQ+ organizations, accepted diverse marginalized communities, had gender-inclusive restrooms, and handled LGBTQ+ issues appropriately.

Our research supports previous studies on minority stress and its effects on LGBTQ+ individuals. It confirms that LGBTQ+ youth face minority stress in the educational system. It also emphasizes certain aspects of resilience that can significantly contribute to mitigating the negative effects of minority stress. It offers a solid foundation for future research and practice. Research addressing resilience is less extensive. Given that social support emerged as a significant factor in our study, it would be reasonable to investigate in the future how school personnel can enhance the resilience of LGBTQ+ youth. In addition, it would be worthwhile to investigate how and in what ways the support of friends and (chosen) families influences the experiences of LGBTQ+ students in school.

Implications for practice

School is an important environment for LGBTQ+ youth because it can be both a risk factor and a protective factor against minority stress. Educational institutions can support LGBTQ+ youth in two ways: by reducing the negative effects of minority stress through measures to prevent stigma, prejudice, discrimination, and violence, and by strengthening the resilience of LGBTQ+ youth.

It is essential to establish environments where minorities can be treated with respect. Resilience is a key protective factor that needs to be acknowledged and strengthened since it moderates the interaction between minority stress and health outcomes (Meyer, 2003). According to Hatzenbuehler and Pachankis (2016) and Chaudoir et al. (2017), reducing the negative effects of minority stress and strengthening resilience can be accomplished on three distinct intervention levels: structural, interpersonal, and individual. Interventions at the structural level alter the environment for LGBTQ+ youth to make it less stressful. For instance, state laws that prohibit discrimination, harassment, or bullying based on sexual orientation and gender identity, school policies, interventions that reduce the stigma and prejudice associated with sexual orientation and gender identity, and interventions that promote a positive school climate. It is crucial that educational institutions and their personnel have a zero-tolerance policy for all forms of violence and hatred. Russel and Fish (2016) found that LGBTQ+ students who attend schools with anti-discrimination or antibullying policies that explicitly include actual or perceived sexual orientation as well as gender identity or expression are less likely to be bullied than LGBTQ+ students who attend schools without these protections. Another important structural intervention is ensuring the use of gender-inclusive spaces, or comfortable spaces that correspond with a person’s gender identity. It is important to consider the transgender individual’s preference for a comfortable sports education group. In our study, LGBTQ+ young people were careful to socialize with people who are part of the LGBTQ+ community or who they know to be LGBTQ±friendly. This points to the need for gender-sexuality alliances, or other groups where LGBTQ+ people can socialize and be out and visible. These groups also represent an important aspect of community-based resilience. Our participants did not mention that such groups existed in the Slovenian schools they attended. However, such groups do exist abroad and have a positive impact on the mental health of LGBTQ+ people (e.g., Poteat et al., 2019). This lack of gender-sexuality alliances or other similar groups across all of Slovenia may contribute to the challenges faced by these students. Furthermore, the status of LGBTQ+ teachers in Slovenia proves to be a complex issue. While there are no explicit legal barriers preventing LGBTQ+ teachers from coming out, societal attitudes and school culture have a significant impact on the openness with which they speak about their identity. The lack of support groups for students and the limited visibility of LGBTQ+ teachers could exacerbate the feeling of isolation and lack of representation of LGBTQ+ students.

Interpersonal-level interventions encourage parents, mental health providers, and educators to engage in positive interpersonal interactions (Hatzenbuehler & Pachankis, 2016). To create a safe and respectful environment, it is necessary to use respectful language. It is important, when addressing transgender students, to communicate and write in ways that recognize and give visibility to transgender people, considering the transgender person’s choices and preferences. It is crucial to consider a person’s name and pronouns (Jadva et al., 2023). Individual-level interventions seek to assist LGBTQ+ individuals in coping with stigma (Hatzenbuehler & Pachankis, 2016) or to lessen individuals’ stereotyping or prejudice, which may reduce the expression of discriminatory behaviors (Chaudoir et al., 2017). Understanding and accepting LGBTQ+ students require knowledge of pertinent LGBTQ+ terminology, which may reduce prejudice and stereotyping. As school experiences can contribute to mental health problems among LGBTQ+ youth (Hatchel et al., 2019; Herman, 2013; Jadva et al., 2023; Weeks et al., 2023; Witcomb et al., 2019), schools can play a preventive role by increasing students’ awareness of mental health promotion and educating them about the warning signs of mental health problems. Existing mental health issues can be addressed in educational settings by providing supportive sessions by trained personnel (e.g., school counselors) and by referring students to mental health professionals outside the education system.

Limitations

Transgender and non-binary individuals were underrepresented in our study, as most of the participants were cisgender. Since transgender people have different experiences in the education system compared to lesbian, gay, and bisexual people, for instance, and face unique challenges related to their gender identity (Horton, 2023), it would be beneficial to explore their experiences in the education system in greater depth and to focus on their strengths in addition to their negative experiences. In the future, it would also be interesting to investigate potential differences in the experience of minority stress in the school environment between different sexual orientations. Our study may have bias because it relies on retrospective student accounts and ignores the viewpoints of adults and school personnel, which results in a partial representation of the learning environment. Adult behavior in educational contexts should be the subject of future research.

Conclusions

This study emphasizes the role that educational institutions play in both exacerbated and reduced minority stress among LGBTQ+ students. To support LGBTQ+ youth, schools can implement interventions at multiple levels. Structural interventions involve creating an environment that is less stressful for LGBTQ+ individuals, including implementing state laws and school policies that address discrimination and bullying based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Additionally, interventions should focus on fostering a positive school climate and providing gender-inclusive spaces that are consistent with individuals’ gender identity. Interpersonal interventions emphasize affirmative interactions from parents, mental health providers, and educators. This includes using respectful language, recognizing, and respecting transgender individuals’ chosen names and pronouns, and increasing awareness and understanding of LGBTQ+ terminology. Individual-level interventions target stigma reduction and decrease stereotyping and prejudice, aiming to improve mental health outcomes. This can be achieved by educating students about mental health promotion, identifying signs of mental health problems, and providing supportive sessions by trained staff and referrals to mental health professionals.

Overall, educational institutions play a crucial role in fostering welcoming and supportive environments for LGBTQ+ students. By implementing interventions at the structural, interpersonal, and individual levels, schools can reduce the negative effects of minority stress, improve the resilience of LGBTQ+ youth, and promote their well-being. By doing so schools can contribute to the positive development and educational experiences of all students, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Slovenian Research Agency [P5-0444].

Notes

1. In 2011, the National Assembly of the Republic of Slovenia adopted a family law that allowed adoption for same-sex couples. This decision was followed by a backlash, which led to the Citizens’ Initiative for Family and Children’s Rights requesting a referendum. To hold a referendum, they had to collect 40,000 signatures, which they did. The referendum took place in 2012 and the family law was overturned. It was not until 2022 that same-sex couples in Slovenia were granted the right to adopt children.