Parents of gay, lesbian and bisexual kids take years to adjust to their children coming out.
A new study has shown that parents of LGB youth struggle for years after finding out about their sexuality.
A study tackling the struggles of LGB kids
The research by George Washington University is the first of its kind to specifically tackle parents of LGB kids.
For the study, the researchers surveyed 1,200 parents of LGB youth ages 10 to 25.
They answered questions like, ‘How hard is it for you, knowing that your son or daughter is LBG?’
Significantly, the study has found little difference between the responses of mothers and fathers whose child had just come out compared to those who had years to process the new information.
Parents still struggle after their kids have come out
‘Surprisingly, we found that parents who knew about a child’s sexual orientation for two years struggled as much as parents who had recently learned the news,’ said David Huebner, a lead researcher for the study.
‘Two years is a very long time in the life of a child who is faced with the stress of a disapproving or rejecting parent.’
The study also highlighted that parents of older children had a tougher time, but both mothers and fathers had similar struggles.
Parents need to speed up their adjustment process
Recent research also showed that nine in 10 LGBTI young people in the UK experience anxiety or depression. Knowing that one’s closest family members aren’t accepting of their sexuality might also impact LGBTI kids’ mental health.
Moreover, Huebner feels strongly that mothers and fathers who have a difficult time adjusting still genuinely care about their children and eventually do come around.
‘Our results suggest interventions to speed up the adjustment process would help not only the parents but also their children,’ said Huebner.
‘LGB youth with accepting families are more likely to thrive as they enter adulthood.’
The first Pride to be held in the Eurasian country of Georgia is taking place in its capital, Tbilisi, this week. Recent violence and threats against the organizers of Tbilisi Pride and their supporters have put the almost week-long series of events from June 18-23 at risk of being canceled.
On Monday, Georgia’s Ministry of Internal Affairs (MIA) met with Tbilisi Pride organizers and the country’s ombudswoman and asked that the event be canceled, an organizer told the Washington Blade. This meeting follows a weekend when organizers were threatened by hooligans and a Georgian millionaire began calling for groups to form against those who would participate in pride.
In defiance of the threats, organizers on Tuesday released a statement confirming they will continue to go ahead with the Pride schedule and calling on people in Georgia to attend to preserve a democratic system.
Tbilisi Pride is scheduled to include a conference and play and will end in a dignity march in the city’s center.
The government told Pride organizers last month they may not be able to provide the needed security that this weekend’s march would need. The discussion came after threats were received by the organizers on social media. After Pride was announced, far-right groups in Geogia began posting anti-LGBTI posts on Facebook, according to the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab. This may have exasperated the already low acceptance of LGBTI people in the country.
“MIA representatives informed us that law enforcement agencies would not be defending LGBT community’s freedom of assembly due to what they see as increased risks and threats coming from radical groups,” Tbilisi Pride’s team said in May.
Georgian President Salome Zourabichvili said last week, “I am everyone’s president, regardless of [sexual orientation] or religious affiliation. No human should be discriminated against. I must also emphasize that our country is dealing with enough controversies and doesn’t need any further provocation from any side of the[LGBTQ] debate.”
Tbilisi Pride Co-founder Tamaz Sozashvili responded to the statement on Twitter, writing that it was a “shame” that Zourachichvili “says that our right to practice the right of [peaceful assembly] and organize [the] first-ever [Tbilisi Pride] is provocation!”
“How can [she] consider peaceful citizens and aggressive fundamentalists as equal sides?”
On June 14, LGBTI rights supporters attempted to gather in front of a government building to urge the Georgian government to guarantee protection to marchers at pride. A mob of anti-LGBTI protesters moved around the activists, trying to attack them through a police barricade and throwing eggs and other items at the activists. Georgian authorities said they detained 28 people who attempted to break through the barricade and get to the activists.
Levan Vasadze, a millionaire who is known to be close to the powerful Georgian Orthodox Church, has called for groups to prevent Pride. According to OC Media, Vasadze is a representative for the U.S.-based World Congress of Families, a Southern Poverty Law Center-designated hate group, in the country.
“We will organize ourselves into citizens’ brigades … and they will unite in a legion,” Vasadze said at a rally on June 16, local media reported. “Among us are lots of people with military experience, famous athletes, rugby players, wrestlers … if the propagandists of perversion attempt to hold some sort of demonstration, we will break through any police cordon.”
Vasadze also threatened Western diplomats to avoid involvement, according to Eurasianet.
In response to the comments by Vasadze, the Georgian government opened an investigation looking into the organizing of the anti-pride units.
The State Department told Voice of America it was concerned at the threats of violence against LGBTI people planning to attend Tbilisi Pride.
Writing in an op-ed, LGBTQ activist and Tbilisi Pride organizer Giorgi Tabagari said, “I see Tbilisi Pride as an opportunity to unite people against hatred, to stand up against inequality, and to send a message to everyone that we need to start doing something about our future.”
Organizers announced Tbilisi Pride in February. Last year, activists had to cancel events scheduled in Tbilisi after anti-LGBTQ groups threatened the rallies. In 2013, participants at a gathering against homophobia were forced to run after a group of priests and scores of anti-LGBTQ protestors surrounded them.
In its recent yearly benchmarking tool of LGBTI rights, international rights group ILGA-Europe ranked Georgia 30 percent out of 100.
In honour of Pride month, the New York City Commission of Human Rights temporarily renamed New York’s Gay Street to ‘Acceptance Street’ on Monday (June 17).
The short, angled street was originally a stable alley, and is one of the most picturesque in Manhattan’s Greenwich Village. It’s located a short walk away from the Stonewall Inn, where the modern LGBT+ rights movement began with a riot in 1969.
While the historic origins of the name Gay Street are debated, it is not in reference to the LGBT+ community, but is believed to have come from a family named Gay who lived or owned land there in the late 18th Century.
The famous street has featured in the opening shots of Cyndi Lauper’s music video for “Girls Just Want to Have Fun,” and Sheryl Crow’s music video for “A Change Would Do You Good.”
Two students have been indefinitely suspended from the Kearns High football team for a social media post showing a Pride flag being burned and threatening LGBTQ people. A player posted a video on Snapchat last week where someone lights an LGBTQ Pride flag on fire and laughs. Someone in the video is heard saying “all gays die.”
Granite School District officials are determining the proper punishment, which could include community service or school suspension for the student who posted the video and another who reposted it. “There’s no place for that in our program at all, and it won’t be tolerated,” said Matt Rickards, the team’s head coach. “It’s potentially a hate crime, so it sickens me.”
The Granite School District in Northern Utah asked police to open an investigation this week as the controversial Snapchat video sparked outrage on social media, school officials told ABC News on Tuesday. Granite School District spokesman Ben Horsley said the district opened an independent investigation immediately and notified local police.
“We are having police look at it to ensure that there is no criminal implications,” Horsley told ABC News in an interview on Tuesday. “Looking at the video, whether if it was intended as a joke or as a serious and broad threat against LGBTQ individuals, it’s still a reprehensible act. We need to condemn hatred and bigotry wherever we see it.”
One of the country’s most infamous providers of so-called conversion therapy — a contentious practice that tries to change a gay person’s sexual orientation — will be forced to pay up to $3.5 million after it was found to be in violation of a 2015 court order to shut down.
“It’s a deterrent and a warning shot,” Michael Ferguson, one of the plaintiffs in the case, told NBC News. “If you’re practicing conversion therapy, make no mistake that you will be found out and you will be punished. We are not going to tolerate these practices on members of our community any longer, particularly the most vulnerable.”
On Monday, Judge Peter F. Bariso Jr. of New Jersey Superior Court granted a permanent injunction against Jews Offering New Alternatives for Healing (JONAH), a conversion therapy organization based in Jersey City. After a six-person jury found JONAH guilty of “unconscionable commercial practices” in 2015, its offices reopened under a new name: the Jewish Institute for Global Awareness (JIFGA).
In a 47-page decision, Bariso claimed JIFGA is a “mere continuation of JONAH.” He called upon the organization to “cease any and all operations within 30 days of the entry of this order,” as well as to shut down its website and dissolve all corporate holdings.
Arthur Goldberg and Elaine Berk, who served as the co-directors of JIFGA, will also be “permanently enjoined” from holding any position in executive leadership or sitting on the board of a nonprofit or other tax-exempt entity.
Lastly, the defendants will be held liable for the remainder of the sum awarded by the court four years ago. In that decision, hailed as a “landmark” ruling by opponents of conversion therapy, the court claimed that JONAH had committed fraud by offering services that claimed to change the sexual orientation or gender identity of patients. Nearly every leading medical association has condemned conversion therapy as ineffective and harmful.
In the three-and-a-half week jury trial, former clients of JONAH attested to the extreme harms they experienced as a result of its services. The organization referred patients to conversion therapists like Alan Downing, who plaintiffs testified ordered them to strip naked and beat pillows that represented their mothers in order to “cure” them of their same-sex attractions.
As part of the settlement agreement, JONAH agreed to pay a portion of the plaintiffs’ legal fees. If the organization did not cease its referral services over the next five years, it would be forced to pay the remaining balance of $3.5 million.
Attorney David Dinielli delivers the opening statements for the plaintiff in a fraud trial against Jews Offering New Alternatives for Healing, (JONAH) on June 3, 2015, in Jersey City, New Jersey.Alex Remnick / The Star-Ledger via AP Pool
David Dinielli, deputy legal director of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s LGBTQ rights and special litigation project, could not comment on how much JONAH paid to plaintiffs in 2015 or how much will be awarded as a result of Monday’s verdict. He claimed the settlement was designed to ensure that the organization complied with the injunction, under the threat of incurring further penalty.
“The most important thing was to get the defendants to stop engaging in dangerous behavior that puts young people at risk,” Dinielli told NBC News.
Ferguson, who was at a neuroscience conference in Rome at the time of Monday’s ruling, said he felt a wave of “righteous anger” when he learned that the New Jersey Superior Court had again ordered JONAH to cease all operations.
“There was this profound sense of vindication, that we were finally getting something that felt like it had teeth to it in the ruling,” he said. “When we got our initial ruling on the trial in 2015, it did not feel like it was sufficiently metered relative to the gross offenses of JONAH and the experiences of all the plaintiffs.”
Plaintiffs hope the case will set a precedent in how other states tackle the issue of conversion therapy. Although the Williams Institute, a pro-LGBTQ think tank at UCLA, has estimated that more 700,000 Americans have been subjected to efforts to change their sexual orientation or gender identity, the practice remains legal in 32 states. No state has banned conversion therapy on LGBTQ individuals over the age of 18.
But Ferguson believes that New Jersey Superior Court’s emphasis on penalizing JONAH’s activities as fraud opens up an opportunity to target conversion therapy providers in all 50 states. Every state has laws on the books forbidding private entities from advertising fraudulent services, as does the federal government.
“Fraud is already illegal,” Ferguson said. “I’m really hoping that the national strategy adapts so that we begin to enforce and deploy fraud laws that already exist in order to hold individuals accountable.”
That movement has already begun. Last year, Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., and Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., sponsored a pair of federal bills that would classify conversion therapy as “fraud,” but those pieces of legislation both died in committee. In April, Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney, D-N.Y., who is gay, reintroduced the Prohibition of Medicaid Funding for Conversion Therapy Act, which would prevent the use of Medicaid funding for “reparative” or “ex-gay” treatments.
But as LGBTQ advocacy groups like the Trevor Project and the National Center for Lesbian Rights work to ban conversion therapy across the country, Dinielli hopes this week’s judgment serves an “educational purpose.”
“Our case was the first time that people who had survived conversion therapy had an opportunity to stand in front of a jury and describe what had happened to them,” he said. “We hope that parents around the country will think twice before they encourage or require young people to participate in any effort intended to change their orientation or their gender identity.”
Tony Perkins, a vitriolic anti-LGBTI and Islamophobic figure, has been tapped to lead the US Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF).
Perkins, who is also the president of the far-right Christian lobbying organization the Family Research Council, was initially named chair of the Commission last year.
With this new appointment, he will oversee the mission of the USCIRF for at least a year.
Created by the International Religious Freedom Act in 1998, the USCIRF ‘uses international standards to monitor religious freedom violations globally, and makes policy recommendations to the President, the Secretary of State, and Congress’.
The President and Congressionals leaders from both parties appoint commissioners.
Hateful views instead of freedom
Despite leading a group advocating for freedom, Perkins’ various views counter the ‘freedoms of thought, conscience, expression, association, and assembly’ as outline by the Commission’s definition of religious freedom.
His thoughts on LGBTI rights are extensive and hateful.
Most recently, he called trans pride flags ‘unpleasant’.
The Southern Poverty Law Center also lists the Family Research Council, which endorses conversion therapy, as an anti-LGBTI hate group.
Perkins is also extremely Islamophobic.
In 2010 while appearing on CNN, he said people who follow the literal teachings of Islam ‘have perpetuated great evils on society’.
He also wrote that only 16% of Islam is a religion. The rest, he claimed, ‘is a combination of military, judicial, economic, and political system’ and therefore ‘Sharia is not a religion in the context of the First Amendment’.
Religious freedom as a weapon
Since Trump assumed office, his administration has used religious freedom as a guise to attack the LGBTI community and other marginalized communities.
It has also consistently advocated for religious freedom over anti-discrimination protections.
In January, the administration granted a foster care agency in South Carolina the right to discriminate against potential parents, including same-sex parents, due to the agency’s religious beliefs.
Last year, another Supreme Court case rocked the country when the justices voted in favor of a baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. The Trump administration fully supported this ruling.
Democrats, however, are trying to combat the use of religious freedom as a weapon. In February, they reintroduced the Do No Harm Act, which protects religious minorities and freedoms, while not bypassing anti-discrimination laws.
As President Donald Trump’s ban on most transgender military servicemembers continues to face legal challenges, 71% of Americans support allowing openly transgender men and women to serve in the military.U.S. Support for Transgender People Serving in the MilitaryDo you favor or oppose allowing openly transgender men and women to serve in the military?
Favor
Oppose
No opinion
%
%
%
National adults
71
26
2
Republicans
43
53
4
Independents
78
20
2
Democrats
88
11
1
Military veterans
56
43
1
Nonveterans
73
25
2
Men
64
34
2
Women
79
20
2
18-29
84
15
2
30-49
73
25
2
50-64
66
32
2
65+
66
33
1
May 15-30, 2019
GALLUP
These data are from a May 15-30 Gallup poll, which was conducted prior to a recent U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision that allows the ban to stand for the time being, but calls for a review of the policy that could still jeopardize its legal standing. On Tuesday, the House of Representatives voted to block funding to implement the policy — though the measure’s chances of passing in the GOP-controlled Senate, much like the recently passed Equality Act, are unlikely.
Majorities of Americans across nearly all key demographic groups, except for Republicans, support allowing transgender men and women to serve in the U.S. military. Republicans (43%) are far less likely than Democrats (88%) and independents (78%) to support allowing trans servicemembers.
A small majority of adults with military experience (56%) say that transgender people should be allowed to serve, though nonveterans are more likely to say this (73%).
Women are more likely than men to support transgender military service, and support is higher among younger adults than older Americans.
These findings about Americans’ views of transgender people serving in the military are similar to Gallup’s polling in the years leading up to the 2010 repeal of the military’s Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy, which barred gays and lesbians from serving openly. At the time, Gallup found that most Americans supported allowing openly gay servicemembers.
Americans Remain Split on Transgender Bathroom Policies
Americans’ views on gender-related policies governing public restrooms have shown little movement in recent years. Gallup first polled on the issue in 2016, when Barack Obama’s Department of Education directed public schools to allow transgender students to use restrooms and locker rooms that correspond with their gender identity, rather than their birth gender. This policy has since been rescinded under the Trump administration.
The issue has roiled local and state politics, but public opinion has changed little, with 51% of Americans saying that transgender people should have to use the restroom corresponding with their birth gender and 44% saying that transgender people should use the restroom that corresponds with their gender identity.Americans’ Views on Restroom Policies for Transgender PeopleIn terms of policies governing public restrooms, do you think these policies should — [ROTATED: require transgender individuals to use the restroom that corresponds with their birth gender (or should these policies) allow transgender individuals to use the restroom that corresponds with their gender identity]?
Birth gender
Gender identity
No opinion
%
%
%
May 15-30, 2019
51
44
5
May 3-7, 2017
48
45
7
May 4-8, 2016
50
40
10
GALLUP
The percentage of Americans who now have no opinion (5%) is half of what it was in 2016, likely reflecting that they have become more familiar with the issue in recent years.
Having restroom assignment based on birth gender is preferred by most by Republicans (78%) and men (61%).
By contrast, Democrats (66%), adults aged 18 to 29 (61%) and women (53%) are the groups most likely to say students should be able to choose bathrooms based on their gender identity.Views on Restroom Policies for Transgender People, by SubgroupIn terms of policies governing public restrooms, do you think these policies should — [ROTATED: require transgender individuals to use the restroom that corresponds with their birth gender (or should these policies) allow transgender individuals to use the restroom that corresponds with their gender identity]?
Birth gender
Gender identity
%
%
National adults
51
44
Republicans
78
18
Independents
50
46
Democrats
27
66
Men
61
35
Women
42
53
18-29
37
61
30-49
58
38
50-64
52
42
65+
52
41
May 15-30, 2019
GALLUP
Two in Three Americans Prefer Separate Restrooms for Men and Women
Many public places have responded to the transgender restroom policy debate by providing unisex restrooms that can be used by anyone. But according to the new poll, Americans prefer separate bathrooms for men and women (68%) in large public places as opposed to unisex ones (30%).Americans’ Views on Separate vs. Unisex RestroomsMore generally, in large public places such as malls, stadiums and airports, do you think there should be — [ROTATED: separate bathrooms for men and women, (or should there be) unisex bathrooms that can be used by all genders]?
Separate bathrooms
Unisex bathrooms
No opinion
%
%
%
May 15-30, 2019
68
30
2
May 15-30, 2019
GALLUP
Majorities of all key subgroups favor separate restrooms for men and women, with Republicans (81%) most in favor, but also a little over half of 18- to 29-year-olds (52%) and Democrats (56%).
Bottom Line
With gay marriage now a political moot point and Don’t Ask Don’t Tell having been repealed for several years, LGBT activists have largely shifted their focus to trans issues as the Trump administration has moved to undo the trans-friendly policies of the Obama era.
Similar to their views on openly gay servicemembers in the aughts, most Americans support allowing transgender people to serve in the U.S. military. This contrasts with Trump’s ban on transgender servicemembers, which he announced via a series of tweets in July 2017. Though the ban has since been subject to legal and political scrutiny, it remains in place.
Gender policies around public restrooms are much more mixed, with Americans leaning slightly toward policies based on one’s birth gender rather than their gender identity. While public opinion has moved little in recent years, the actual federal policies for schools on this issue have undergone an about-face from the previous presidency. Views on the policies are strongest by political party identification, so it’s very likely that policy changes will only take place upon shifts in party control at state and federal levels — as was the case in North Carolina, which became the focal point of this issue years ago.
A suburban St. Louis man accused of telling organizers of the city’s Pride parade that he would shoot and kill as many gays as possible at the LGBTQ celebration before turning the gun on himself has been charged with making a terrorist threat, according to court documents. Edward Terry, 49, of Overland, was charged Tuesday.
Court documents say Terry created a fake email account and sent a message to one of PrideSTL’s parade planners saying he would take his guns to PrideFest and “kill every gay person I can before I kill myself.”
The recipient notified the FBI, and police tracked the account to Terry’s cellphone, according to the court documents. Bail for Terry, who also has a theft case pending in another St. Louis suburb, is set at $20,000, cash only. No attorney who can comment on his behalf is listed in online court records.
In the middle of Pride month and on the eve of the 50th anniversary of Stonewall, the United States Senateconfirmed a new judge — another anti-LGBTI Trump appointee.
Matthew Kacsmaryk achieved his lifetime appointment to the federal bench in the Northern District of Texas with a 52-46 vote.
The vote happened along party lines. Only one Republican, Sen. Susan Collins (ME), voted against Kacsmaryk. She cited his ‘extreme statements’ on LGBTI and reproductive rights, stating they ‘reflect poorly on Mr. Kacsmaryk’s temperament and suggest an inability to respect precedent and to apply the law fairly and impartially’.
Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-NY) referenced Collins’ choice in his remarks on the vote.
‘Mr. Kacsmaryk has demonstrated a hostility to the LGBTQ bordering on paranoia,’ he said.
‘It’s unbelievable that this man has been nominated, and he’s not alone. The parade of narrow-minded, often bigoted people who we’re putting on the bench. . . . One Republican senator rightfully voiced concerns about this man’s fitness. Where are the others?’
What has this judge said about LGBTI rights?
Kacsmaryk’s anti-LGBTI comments are extensive.
He has previously described identifying as transgender as a ‘mental disorder’ and disputed the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) stance that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects sexual orientation and gender identity.
He also claimed ‘sexual revolutionaries’ cause married and unborn children to become less important than ‘erotic desires of liberated adults’.
Failing the basic requirement of ‘equal under the law’
Sarah Warbelow, the Human Rights Campaign’s Legal Director, described Kacsmaryk as one of the Trump administration’s most anti-LGBTI judge picks.
‘He has a long history of virulently anti-LGBTQ opinions and positions — including his deeply disturbing opposition to same-sex marriage, his vocal hostility towards legal protections for gender identity and sexual orientation, and his shocking refusal to recognize the basic humanity of transgender people,’ she continued.
‘Kacsmaryk fails the basic expectation of impartiality and commitment to equality under the law that we demand of every member of the bench.
‘The Human Rights Campaign will continue to raise the alarm about Kacsmaryk and future nominees who refuse to protect the rights of all Americans.’
Just 19% of those who identify as bisexual say all or most of the important people in their lives are aware of their sexual orientation.
What does the study say?
Around 75% of gay and lesbian adults said that the bulk of important people in their lives know their sexual orientation.
But this is a striking contrast to just two out of 10 bisexual adults.
Moreover, one-quarter of bisexual adults (26%) are not out to any of the important people in their lives.
Bisexual folk are less likely to be open about their sexuality to important people in their life | Graphic: Josh Milton
This is compared with just 4% of gay and lesbian adults.
Roughly half of those who are bisexual (54%) are out to some or only a few people.
‘I feel like people will discredit it or undermine [being bi]’
‘I’ve still not come out to my parents,’ said Hannah Parker*. The 24-year-old, who identities as bisexual, told Gay Star News that limited acceptability and restrained visibility are the roadblocks of her coming out to loved ones.
‘It’s not that I don’t think they’re tolerant but I think it is a lot more black and white if you’re gay or straight.
‘I think people also see bi as a phase, they’re think you’re just being slutty and indecisive. Rather than it being something about yourself that you can’t change,’ she added.
‘It’s never something I really talk about with people. I feel like people will discredit it or undermine it, that they will judge me.’
Not only is Parker hesitant to discuss her sexuality, but when coming out, she has encountered private detective-style questioning from friends.
‘I remember telling one person and then him asking ok, but how far have you got with a woman? Have you had sex/gone down on a woman?
‘Basically, getting me to recount my sexual history.
‘It felt like I had to prove I was bisexual and my feeling that I am bi wasn’t good enough.’
Distrust and disinformation
Furthermore, Joe Duncan* told Gay Star News that, as a bi man, he’s had girlfriends break-up with him as they ‘can’t cope’ with him ‘not only liking girls, but guys, too.’
Duncan explained that ‘jealously’ is often a reason people won’t date him.
‘They say there’s double the amount of people I can cheat on them with,’ he said.