Reshaping Time: Recommendations for Suicide Prevention in LBGT Populations

Abstract

This article serves as one of the supplementary pieces of this special issue on "Mapping Queer Bioethics," in which we take a solipsistic turn to "map" the Journal of Homosexuality itself. Here, the author examines the journal's 2011 consensus recommendations for the prevention of LGBT suicide. Invoking the axiom approach of Eve Kosovsky Sedgwick's seminal Epistemology of the Closet, the author argues that merely offering practical guidelines at the level of the demonstrative and the instructive may not be sufficient models to address the urgency of suicide rates in LGBTQ youth populations.

Assessing Communicative Resilience in Suicide Prevention for LGBTQ+ Communities: A Qualitative Analysis of Community Conversations

“…5,12 LGBTQ + communities, which are often marginalized and experience some of the highest rates of suicidality among any demographic population in the US, were able to share strengths, strategies, sources of hope, and connection through these discussions. [13][14][15][16]24 Though not previously explored within the field of suicide prevention, communicative resilience processes can be identified throughout many best practices in suicide prevention. 7,12 For example, affirming communication and support reduces suicidality among LGBTQ + individuals.…”

“…12 Since LGBTQ + communities experience disproportionate rates of suicidal thoughts and attempted suicide, it is important to identify and explore strategies for suicide prevention among these communities. [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23] For these reasons, this study pursued the following objectives: 1) use AI to engage members of local LGBTQ + communities in conversations regarding suicide prevention and 2) identify and assess the use of communicative resilience in suicide prevention for these local LGBTQ + communities. Therefore, this analysis seeks to answer, "How are communicative resilience processes enacted for suicide prevention among LGBTQ + communities?…”

Sujeción y Resistencia de Sujetos LGTB en la Educación Secundaria

“…Desde aquí es posible visualizar que los jóvenes que se adscriben a localizaciones no hegemónicas presentan mayor riesgo de victimización y acoso (Bouris, Everett, Heath, Elsaesser y Neilands, 2016;Mullaney, 2016, Pichardo, Molinuevo, Rodríguez y Romero, 2009. Asimismo, debido a que algunos escenarios escolares secundarios se presentan como sistema cerrado, sin ofrecer espacios a las singularidades, solo queda que los que no se ajustan a sus códigos opten por afirmar sus diferencias y su devenir en una especie de auto-apartheid, replegándose a una posición particular o bien recogiéndose en una relación periférica que lucha por algunas trasformaciones, pero dentro del marco de los valores y contenidos políticos y culturales de los sectores dominantes; atisbándose las implicancias de desanudar el sistema cerrado en que se ha ido configurando el saber pedagógico que promueve un sistema escolar totalizador.…”

Evaluating social inclusion: An adaptable measure for use on college campuses

“…Sexual and gender minorities often face social stigma early, beginning in school, that affects their global health and well-being. The disparities in mental and physical health among SGMs are often attributed to structural discrimination including increased rates of poverty, homelessness, depression, anxiety, suicidality, interpersonal violence, and sexually transmitted infections (Durso & Gates, 2012;CDC, 2013;National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 2016;Mullaney, 2016;Coulter & Miller, 2018;Hunt,, et al, 2018;Lim et al, 2018). Sexual and gender minorities are confronted not only by social stigma and health disparities, but also by the many professionals who do not have the education, training, or field-related knowledge necessary to provide adequate, appropriate guidance and services.…”

“…Fortunately, researchers are beginning to identify concrete steps that can be taken to maximize wellness of SGM populations (CDC, 2013;Coulter & Miller, 2018;Gahagan & Subirana-Malaret, 2018;Harvard Opinion Research Program, 2017;Hunt, et al, 2018;Lim, et al, 2018;Mullaney, 2016). This acts as a reminder that, as Lim et al asserted, identifying as LGBTQ[IA+] is not biologically hazardous to health, enduring social stigma and homophobia is (2018).…”