Education, Faculty of
Educational and Counselling Psychology, and Special Education (ECPS), Department of
DSpace
UBCV
Munro, David Willis
Doctor of Philosophy - PhD
University of British Columbia
This study investigated how sexual and gender minority (SGM) youth and their parents jointly construct and act on goals and strategies germane to the youth’s sexual orientation and/or gender identity (SOGI) construction. Six parent-youth dyads were followed over 7-10 months using the qualitative Action-Project Method, which is grounded in Contextual Action Theory. Data include participant conversations, video recall of internal processes, and researcher telephone monitoring. Detailed analysis of elements, functional steps, and goals resulted in the identification of a parent-youth relationship project for each dyad. Embedded within the broader relationship project were joint actions specific to the youth’s SOGI construction process, such as: supporting one another with challenges related to identity disclosures; parents coming out on the youth’s behalf; revisiting the past; and looking forward to the future with hope and optimism. Findings demonstrate a SOGI construction process that is relational, socially meaningful, ongoing, dynamic, and infused with goal-directed action. Importantly, these findings provide insight into complex parent-youth relationship processes that facilitate the youth’s SOGI construction process.
SEXUAL AND GENDER MINORITY YOUTH AND THEIR PARENTS: IDENTITY-RELATED CONVERSATIONS by David Willis Munro B.A., Simon Fraser University, 1993 M.Sped., Macquarie University, 2007 M. Ed., The University of British Columbia, 2012 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES (Counselling Psychology) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) © David Willis Munro, 2022 ii The following individuals certify that they have read, and recommend to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies for acceptance, the dissertation entitled: Sexual and Gender Minority Youth and their Parents: Identity-Related Conversations submitted by David Willis Munro in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Counselling Psychology Examining Committee: Dr. Richard Young, Professor, Counselling Psychology, UBC Supervisor Dr. Sheila Marshall, Professor, Social Work, UBC Supervisory Committee Member Dr. Anusha Kassan, Associate Professor, School and Applied Child Psychology, UBC Supervisory Committee Member Dr. Thomas Schanding, Associate Professor, School and Applied Child Psychology, UBC University Examiner Dr. Lisa Loutzenheiser, Associate Professor, Curriculum and Pedagogy, UBC University Examiner iii Abstract This study investigated how sexual and gender minority (SGM) youth and their parents jointly construct and act on goals and strategies germane to the youth’s sexual orientation and/or gender identity (SOGI) construction. Six parent-youth dyads were followed over 7-10 months using the qualitative Action-Project Method, which is grounded in Contextual Action Theory. Data include participant conversations, video recall of internal processes, and researcher telephone monitoring. Detailed analysis of elements, functional steps, and goals resulted in the identification of a parent-youth relationship project for each dyad. Embedded within the broader relationship project were joint actions specific to the youth’s SOGI construction process, such as: supporting one another with challenges related to identity disclosures; parents coming out on the youth’s behalf; revisiting the past; and looking forward to the future with hope and optimism. Findings demonstrate a SOGI construction process that is relational, socially meaningful, ongoing, dynamic, and infused with goal-directed action. Importantly, these findings provide insight into complex parent-youth relationship processes that facilitate the youth’s SOGI construction process. iv Lay Summary Parental support is important for sexual and gender minority (SGM) youth. This study investigated the relationships between SGM youth and their parents to see how these relationships affect the youth’s developing sexual orientation and/or gender identity (SOGI). Six parent-youth pairs were interviewed for this study over 7-10 months. Some of the interviews were done in person, and others were done by telephone. The researchers analyzed the interviews in order to see what the youth and parents were doing together. Results of the analysis showed that the parent and youth pairs were acting together in ways that support the youth’s sexual orientation and/or gender identity. For example, the parents and youth were supporting each other with challenges related to coming out; sharing regret about the past; and looking forward to the future with hope and optimism. This study shows us that youth SOGI construction is an ongoing and goal-directed process that can happen in relationships with parents. Importantly, these findings help us to understand how relationships with parents may help youth with their SOGI construction process. v Preface This dissertation is the original, independent work by the author, David Willis Munro. This research was covered by UBC Ethics Certificate Number H16-01989. This work was supported by a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. vi Table of Contents Abstract ................................................................................................................................... iii Lay Summary .......................................................................................................................... iv Preface ....................................................................................................................................... v Table of Contents .................................................................................................................... vi List of Tables ........................................................................................................................ xiii List of Figures ........................................................................................................................ xiv Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................ xv Chapter 1: Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1 Introduction to the Research Problem ........................................................................... 1 The Importance of Parental Support .............................................................................. 2 An Individual-Focused Research Base .......................................................................... 4 Need for a Relational Theoretical Framework .............................................................. 6 The Present Study: Purpose and Significance ............................................................... 9 Chapter 2: Literature Review ............................................................................................... 11 A Shifting Sociocultural Landscape ............................................................................ 11 Unique Issues Faced by SGM Youth .......................................................................... 15 Stigma-Related Stress ...................................................................................... 15 Risk, Resilience, and the Need for Social Support .......................................... 20 vii SGM Identity Development ......................................................................................... 23 Stage Models of Sexual Orientation Development .......................................... 23 Models of Transgender Identity Development. ................................................ 29 Narrative Approaches to SGM Identity Development ..................................... 36 Multidimensional Models of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Development. ........................................................................................................................... 38 Coming Out to Parents ................................................................................................ 40 Limited Research on Parent Responses to SGM Youth .............................................. 46 Qualitative Research on the Coming out Experience .................................................. 47 Transition to Adulthood for SGM Youth .................................................................... 50 Theoretical Frameworks for Understanding SGM Youth-Parent Relations ............... 51 Contextual Action Theory ........................................................................................... 55 Perspectives on Action: Behavior, Internal Processes, and Meaning .............. 56 Systems of Action: Action, Project, and Career ............................................... 57 Levels of Action: Elements, Functional Steps, and Goals ............................... 58 CAT and Identity: Bridging an Epistemological Divide ............................................. 59 A Closer Look at CAT and its Applications to SGM Youth-Parent Processes ........... 60 Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 61 Chapter 3: Method ................................................................................................................. 63 Research Design .......................................................................................................... 63 Instrumental Case Study. .................................................................................. 63 viii The Action-Project Method. ............................................................................. 64 Epistemological Framework and Ontology ................................................................. 65 Participants .................................................................................................................. 67 Recruitment Procedures ............................................................................................... 67 Data Collection Procedures ......................................................................................... 68 Phase One. ........................................................................................................ 70 Warm-up interview ...................................................................................................... 70 Video-Recorded Conversation .................................................................................... 71 Video Recall Interview ................................................................................................ 73 Phase Two. ....................................................................................................... 73 Phase Three. ..................................................................................................... 74 Procedures for Data Analysis ...................................................................................... 75 Considerations of Trustworthiness and Rigor ............................................................. 78 Significance of the Study ............................................................................................. 79 Ethical Considerations ................................................................................................. 80 Researcher Relationship to the Research Topic .......................................................... 80 Personal relationship. ....................................................................................... 81 Professional relationship. ................................................................................. 83 Chapter 4: Findings ............................................................................................................... 84 Individual-Case Findings ............................................................................................. 86 ix Dyad 1: Andrew (Youth) and Alice (Parent) ............................................................... 86 Background and Context. ................................................................................. 86 SOGI-Specific Action. ..................................................................................... 87 Joint Project. ..................................................................................................... 89 Concluding Comments. .................................................................................... 90 Assertion. .......................................................................................................... 91 Dyad 2: Sydney (Youth) and Sue (Parent) .................................................................. 91 Background and Context. ................................................................................. 91 SOGI-Specific Action. ..................................................................................... 93 Joint Project. ..................................................................................................... 97 Concluding Comments. .................................................................................... 98 Assertion. .......................................................................................................... 99 Dyad 3: Nick (Youth) and Melissa (Parent) ................................................................ 99 Background and Context. ................................................................................. 99 SOGI-Specific Action. ................................................................................... 100 Joint Project. ................................................................................................... 105 Concluding Comments. .................................................................................. 107 Assertion. ........................................................................................................ 108 Dyad 4: Sean (Youth) and Angie (Parent) ................................................................. 109 Background and Context. ............................................................................... 109 SOGI-Specific Action. ................................................................................... 112 Joint Project. ................................................................................................... 118 x Concluding Comments. .................................................................................. 120 Assertion. ........................................................................................................ 121 Dyad 5: Sarah (Youth) and Michael (Parent) ............................................................ 122 Background and Context. ............................................................................... 122 SOGI-Specific Action. ................................................................................... 123 Joint Project. ................................................................................................... 129 Concluding Comments. .................................................................................. 130 Assertion. ........................................................................................................ 131 Dyad 6: Jason (Youth) and Julie (Parent) .................................................................. 131 Background and Context. ............................................................................... 131 SOGI-Specific Action. ................................................................................... 135 Joint Project. ................................................................................................... 140 Concluding Comments. .................................................................................. 142 Assertion. ........................................................................................................ 142 Cross-Case Analysis .................................................................................................. 143 Relationship Project ................................................................................................... 146 Theme of Active Relational Engagement. ..................................................... 146 SOGI Project .............................................................................................................. 147 Sharing the Youth’s SOGI Status (Coming Out). .......................................... 147 SOGI-Sharing Strategy: “Matter-of-Fact”. .................................................... 148 Joint Gender-Affirming Action. ..................................................................... 149 Salient Actions ........................................................................................................... 152 xi Bringing up SOGI-Specific Topics. ............................................................... 152 Revisiting the Past. ......................................................................................... 153 Integrating Partners. ....................................................................................... 155 Mutual Support and Empathy. ....................................................................... 155 Humor. ............................................................................................................ 156 Mutual Gratitude. ........................................................................................... 156 Hope and Optimism. ...................................................................................... 159 Advocacy and a Desire to Help Others. ......................................................... 162 Concluding Comments .............................................................................................. 163 Key Assertions ........................................................................................................... 164 Key Assertion #1. ........................................................................................... 164 Key Assertion #2. ........................................................................................... 164 Key Assertion #3. ........................................................................................... 164 Key Assertion #4. ........................................................................................... 164 Key Assertion #5. ........................................................................................... 165 Key Assertion #6. ........................................................................................... 165 Chapter 5: Discussion .......................................................................................................... 166 Summary of the Research Problem ........................................................................... 166 Summary of the Findings .......................................................................................... 166 Contributions to the Literature .................................................................................. 168 SOGI Construction Within a Parent-Youth Relationship. ............................. 168 Moving Beyond Acceptance versus Rejection: Mutual Empathy and Love. 170 xii An Opportunity for Relational Repair. ........................................................... 171 A Social Meaning-Making Process. ............................................................... 171 Imagining the Future with their Parents: Co-constructing Possible Selves. .. 172 Resilience and Stigma Management. ............................................................. 173 Implications for Counselling Practice ....................................................................... 175 Identity as a Fixed and Fluid Process ........................................................................ 177 Strengths and Limitations .......................................................................................... 181 Future Research ......................................................................................................... 182 Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 184 References ............................................................................................................................. 187 Appendix A – Recruitment Poster...................................................................................... 223 Appendix B – Telephone Screening ................................................................................... 224 Youth Telephone Screening Form ............................................................................. 225 Parent Telephone Screening Form ............................................................................ 227 Appendix C – Consent Form .............................................................................................. 229 Appendix D – Data Collection and Interview Protocol .................................................... 233 Appendix E – Telephone Monitoring Form ...................................................................... 235 Appendix F – Within-Case Analysis Template ................................................................. 236 Appendix G – Elements for Coding ................................................................................... 239 xiii List of Tables Table 3.1 Duration of Research Interviews for the First Two Meetings ............................... 72 Table 3.2 Duration of Interviews for Telephone Monitoring Calls ........................................ 72 Table 4.1 Structure for Individual-Case Findings ................................................................... 85 Table 4.2 Self-Reported Demographic Information .............................................................. 144 Table 4.3 Cross-Case Findings ................................................................................................ 145 xiv List of Figures Fig. 3.1 Data Collection Procedures. .................................................................................... 70 xv Acknowledgements I extend my sincerest gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. Richard Young. Thank you for your ongoing guidance, support, and wisdom. I am also grateful for my committee members, Dr. Sheila Marshall and Dr. Anusha Kassan. You believed in this project and provided me with helpful feedback throughout this dissertation journey. A special thanks to my family, friends, classmates, colleagues, professors, and clinical supervisors who have supported me throughout my journey as a doctoral student. How lucky I have been to experience so many growth-promoting relationships! Thank you to the participants of this study. I have learned so much from you and am extremely grateful for your involvement in this project. Thank you, Sophie, for being an outstanding co-researcher! I will never forget your kindness, generosity, and amazing work ethic. I am sure we will work together again. Thank you to my partner, Dayvisson. Words cannot express the depth of my gratitude for you. 1 Chapter 1: Introduction Introduction to the Research Problem Growing up in a North American context presents a multitude of challenges for young people. For sexual and gender minority (SGM)1 youth (i.e., youth who identify as non-heterosexual and/or non-cisgender); however, growing up may be particularly challenging and even life-threatening (Eisenberg & Resnick, 2006; Espelage et al., 2018; Russell, 2003; Russell & Fish, 2019; Tebbe & Moradi, 2016; Zullo et al., 2021). Despite advancements, such as marriage equality, anti-discrimination policies, and greater visibility, SGM youth continue to face both internal and external stressors due to stigma and prejudice (Meyer, 2003; Meyer & Frost, 2013; White Hughto et al., 2015). Research indicates that SGM youth face disproportionate emotional, psychological, and physical health problems, when compared with their cisgender and heterosexual counterparts, and they seek mental health services at a higher rate (Bouris et al., 2010; Cochran et al., 2003; Dowshen & Ford, 2019; Hershberger et al., 1997; Meyer, 2003; Needham & Austin, 2010; Padilla et al., 2010; Russell, 2003; Ryan et al., 2009; Veale et al., 2017; Willoughby et al., 2008; 2010). The above is understandable when one 1 Unfortunately, our current language around gender and sexuality is incapable of adequately representing the myriad within-group and between-group differences among people who don’t consider themselves cisgender and/or heterosexual. Various terms are used in the literature, and the terms used by youth are constantly evolving. For the purposes of this paper, the term SGM (Sexual and Gender Minority) is used to describe sexual (orientation) minority and gender minority individuals. The acronym LGBTQ+ was employed for recruitment purposes and had initially been used in this paper to describe SGM youth. However, many SGM people use identity labels such as pansexual, demisexual, asexual, two-spirit, same-gender loving, non-binary, sexually fluid, or gender-fluid, which are not represented by the LGBTQ+ acronym. Furthermore, this acronym may inadvertently reinforce rigid and simplistic binary categories, such as male-female and gay-straight. Additionally, the “T” which stands for transgender is an umbrella term encompassing people who identify as transgender, gender fluid, non-binary as well as other individuals who identify as gender diverse or gender non-conforming (Fassinger & Arseneau, 2007). Consequently, the researcher decided to use the term SGM instead of LGBTQ+. While many young people continue to use traditional terms to describe sexual orientation, there has been a proliferation of emerging labels by today’s youth which eschew the gender binary and do not represent identification with, or orientation toward, one specific gender. Interestingly, transgender and gender-diverse youth are more likely to use novel and emerging terms to describe their sexual orientation (Galupo et al., 2016; Russell et al., 2009; Watson et al., 2020). 2 considers the context in which SGM people live: a society with entrenched cisnormative and heteronormative values that privilege those who conform and castigate those who do not. The Importance of Parental Support Close relationships are central to human existence throughout the life course (Ainsworth, 1989; Jordan, 2010; Perlman, 2007). Supportive relationships may serve to buffer the deleterious effects of stress and facilitate health and well-being (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Cohen, 2004; Cohen & Wills, 1985). While other minority groups may be able to find support at home, SGM youth often face the stress in isolation, without appropriate role models (Chernin & Johnson, 2003; Potoczniak et al., 2007). By remaining distant from their family members, SGM youth may inadvertently reduce their psychosocial resources and become isolated at a time when social support would be beneficial to their emotional and physical well-being (Doty et al., 2010; Katz-Wise et al., 2016; Ryan et al., 2010). Managing a stigmatized and concealed identity consumes a great deal of energy (Pachankis, 2007) and may stunt other critical areas of development during adolescence and young adulthood (Hetherington, 1991). Disclosure of one's SOGI (sexual orientation and/or gender identity) status (i.e., coming out) to one's parents is a significant event in the lives of SGM youth – one that may have profound effects on their development (Savin-Williams, 2001a). Negative parental reactions to a youth’s SOGI disclosures have been associated with an increased risk of both physical and mental health problems for the youth as they enter adulthood (Ryan et al., 2009). Past studies indicate that parents may respond with emotional rejection (Saltzburg, 2004), financial rejection (Henderson, 1998), and physical and/or verbal abuse (Savin-Williams, 1994) following disclosure. Research indicates that, while parents may end up tolerating an SGM identity within the family, acceptance is far from the norm, at least initially following the disclosure (Savin-3 Williams, 2001a). Recent studies examining family adjustment processes (e.g., Abreu et al., 2019; LaSala, 2010; Tyler, 2015; Wakeley & Tuason, 2011), however, indicate that greater numbers of parents are not only accepting their SGM children wholeheartedly, but also experiencing family growth and greater connectedness as a result of the disclosure. Support from parents is a strong predictor of well-being for youth in general (van Wel et al., 2000). For SGM youth, parental support may be especially critical in buffering the negative effects of growing up in a cisnormative and heteronormative environment, such as discrimination, victimization, micro-aggressions, and internalized shame (Eisenberg et al., 2019; Goodrich & Gilbride, 2010; Meyer, 2003). Whereas family rejection contributes to negative mental health outcomes for SGM youth, such as suicide risk, depression, anxiety, social withdrawal, and substance abuse (D’Augelli & Hershberger, 1993; Elze, 2002; Ryan et al., 2009; Tebbe & Moradi, 2016), family acceptance is associated with an increase in the youth's self-esteem and may reduce the risk of depression, suicidal ideation, substance abuse, and unsafe sex among SGM youth (Ryan et al., 2010). In addition to providing a buffer from stigma-related stress (Doty et al., 2010; Feinstein et al., 2014; Poteat et al., 2011), support and affirmation from parents may contribute to healthy identity development (Bregman et al., 2013) and facilitate development in other important life realms, such as career (Schmidt & Nilsson, 2006). Research indicates that, with family support and affirmation, the mental health of youth who identify as transgender or gender diverse is similar to that of cisgender youth (Durwood et al., 2017; Olson et al., 2016). Despite an increase in independence during late adolescence and early adulthood, parental support remains an integral aspect of a young person’s life during this period of time (Aquilino, 1997) and the goal of independence may even become a joint endeavor between the youth and 4 their parents (Scabini et al., 2006). Relationships with parents may be complicated for SGM youth who may have been concealing their identities from their parents for many years and/or selectively managing their identity to protect themselves from negative responses (Torkelson, 2012). Even for those youth who have fully disclosed their SOGI status (i.e., “come out”), relationships may have been strained by years of concealing by the youth. Consequently, SGM youth and their parents may become more distant at a time when support and connection are vital. An Individual-Focused Research Base Research into the “coming out” process for youth has generally addressed the SGM youth's individual experience or the parent's individual experience at one point in time – usually immediately after the disclosure or discovery takes place (Abreu et al., 2019; Heatherington & Lavner, 2008; LaSala, 2010). The literature has largely overlooked the dynamic relational processes that occur between parents and their SGM children. The literature on parent experiences focuses mainly on the parents’ emotional responses immediately following disclosure and often assumes that parents pass through a linear grieving process similar to Kubler-Ross’s (1971) stages of grief (Saltzburg, 2004; Savin-Williams & Dubé, 1998). Recent qualitative and mixed-methods studies indicate, however, that families as a whole may go through a non-linear process involving both challenges to, and strengthening of, the family system (Abreu et al., 2019; LaSala, 2010; Savin-Williams, 2005). The illumination of positive (and even transformative) family processes and outcomes, and the flexibility and resilience of both parents and SGM youth, are welcome additions to a literature base that often emphasizes the risk factors associated with minority identities (Abreu et al., 2019). 5 Cross-sectional studies of SGM youth’s relationships with parents indicate that parental acceptance tends to increase over time (e.g., Bregman et al., 2013; Abreu et al., 2019); however, there is a paucity of research on the post coming-out processes. Thus, we know little about the processes associated with parental acceptance over time. Notably, in a widely cited review of the literature on coming out as lesbian, gay or bisexual (LGB), Heatherington and Lavner (2008) indicated that most of the studies on coming out in families have focused on individual variables. Furthermore, the literature has largely centered on the immediate reactions following the initial identity disclosure in families. The individual and relational processes that occur in the months or years following the disclosure are rarely investigated, leaving Heatherington and Lavner to aver that, with regards to youth coming out to their parents, there is “a striking lack of research on dyadic and family-level relationship variables” (2008, p. 337). Most of the research has examined parents with youth who identify as cisgender sexual minorities (i.e., individuals who identify as cisgender and non-heterosexual). Thus, more research needs to be conducted with individuals who identify as transgender and gender diverse in order to better understand the full range of experiences for these individuals, and to lead to better interventions that will help the acceptance process of parents with transgender and gender diverse youth, and not only those who identify as sexual minorities (Abreu et al., 2019). Similarly, Horn and colleagues (2009) noted that SGM youth relationships with family is an under-studied area, and that negative parental reactions are often assumed to occur following the youth’s coming out. These scholars suggest looking beyond the risk/resilience binary which the literature tends to perpetuate. They highlight the need to look at SGM youth within the context of their relationships and suggest that “a new generation of research is needed to 6 understand not only parental rejection – and acceptance – but the subtleties of family life that are distinctive in the lives of LGBT youth and that are linked to adjustment over time.” (p. 866). Parental responses to coming out may have a long-lasting effect on the health of SGM youth. In another recent call for action, a group of scholars noted “families have a profound impact on adolescent health, but little is known about this influence on LGBTQ+ youth specifically” (Newcomb et al., 2019, p. 1). Since effective parenting has been shown to have promotive effects for cisgender youth, these scholars note that the lack of research on SGM youth and their families is a significant problem. They state, “if we hope to mitigate the vast health inequities experienced by these young people by developing effective interventions and policies, it is imperative that we push this nascent field of research forward through innovative empirical research, including (but not limited to) longitudinal studies of diverse LGBTQ youth and their parents that track the influence of family factors on adolescent health over time (p.6).” Need for a Relational Theoretical Framework Most of the research on SGM youth-parent relationships is correlational and based on an essentialist epistemological framework. Correlational research is helpful in identifying associations between parent and youth variables; however, it may not lead to a greater understanding of the intricate web of relational and contextual processes that are occurring over time. “Coming out” and SOGI development are relational phenomena which have mainly been viewed in the literature as individual phenomena. While psychology has a penchant for examining individual over group processes, there is no denying that we grow and develop within relationships (Ainsworth, 1989; Jordan, 2010). Constructs such as “self” and “identity”, while important for increasing our understanding of human development, may also reify the notion of a 7 separate (i.e., not relational) self and detract our attention from the omnipresent relational context surrounding the individual’s developing identity or self. In the field of parent-child relationships, there has been movement away from deterministic and unidirectional models of parental influence over children toward multi-directional, dialectical, and contextual models (e.g., Kuczynski & De Mol, 2015). Interestingly, this shift in the literature parallels the transformation of the linear views of SOGI development toward more multidimensional models that prioritize context and relationship. Theoretical advances in understanding parent-child relationships over the past few decades have resulted in empirically supported theories that prioritize the interaction between parent and child, and recognize that, when the parent’s or child’s action is viewed in isolation, it is impossible to fully understand the impact these processes have on individual development. In order to better understand the relational processes between SGM youth and their parents, there is a need for theoretical frameworks that highlight the interactive and complex nature of parent-youth relationships. Leon Kuczynski’s (Kuczynski, 2003; Kuczynski et al., 2015; Kuczynski & De Mol, 2015) social relational theory offers a holistic and contextual model for framing dynamic parent-child relationships, which may help to better understand the processes occurring between parents and SGM youth. Where in the past theoretical frameworks viewed parents as exerting a unidirectional influence over children, social relational theory views both parents and children as active meaning-making agents who continuously influence each other in a dialectical and bidirectional manner. Informed by dialectics, social relational theory highlights the contributions of agency, holism, contradiction, and synthesis to the transactional processes that occur in parent-child relationships. Kuczynski’s theory represents a distinct 8 movement away from the past reliance on linearity and direct causality in the literature on parent-child relationships. One theoretical framework that provides a novel understanding of the processes related to coming out or SOGI construction within a family context is Richard Young’s Contextual Action Theory (CAT; Young et al., 2011; Young & Collin, 2004; Young & Popadiuk, 2012; Young & Valach, 2004). In line with social relational theory, CAT views both parents and children as agentic beings who act in a goal-directed manner where feelings, thoughts, and social meaning are integral to constructing action. With a primary focus on joint actions and projects engaged in over time by family members, CAT offers a means of examining the joint relational processes that underlie parent-youth relations. Specifically, parents and youth partake in joint actions, which over time, become “projects.” Young and his colleagues have used CAT as a framework for exploring parent-youth projects related to salient aspects of late adolescence and the transition to adulthood, such as education and career development (Young et al., 2006; 2007; 2008; 2011). There is a need in the literature for movement away from the reliance on individual-focused research toward research investigating the relational aspects of coming out. The term coming out implies a disclosure to another person or persons and, as such, is a relational phenomenon. Moreover, coming out implies intentionality and goal-directedness on the part of the person who is disclosing. CAT scholars note that “by conceptually linking action, project, and career, we have already moved beyond the idea of the individual . . . to ideas of joint action and the embedding of actions in socially constructed projects and careers” (Young et al., 2011, p.13). With this is mind, it appears that an investigation of the goal-directed actions that occur jointly between parents and SGM youth might be a fruitful avenue of exploration; one that has 9 the potential to elucidate the joint processes youth and their parents engage in related to the youth’s SOGI construction or coming out process. The Present Study: Purpose and Significance The present study investigated parent-youth relationships where the youth identify as having a minority SOGI status (i.e., they identify as having a minority sexual orientation, such as lesbian, gay, or bisexual; and/or a minority gender identity, such as transgender or gender-diverse). This was accomplished by using an established, video-based qualitative method (Young et al., 2005) to examine the relational processes involved between parents and SGM youth. The interviews occurred after the youth had disclosed their SOGI status to the participating parent. There were two main aims or objectives of this project. The first aim was to identify and describe individual and joint goal-directed actions that are related to the youth’s SOGI construction, and to offer rich descriptions of the relational processes that occur between parents and SGM youth. The second aim was to better understand how parents contribute to their youth’s identity construction processes on the one hand while navigating their own SOGI-relevant journey on the other. SGM youth and their parents face concurrent but disparate SOGI-relevant experiences that have heretofore been largely examined separately. Research on these experiences is needed in order to develop clinical interventions for SGM youth and their parents and to inform future research studies in this area. To my knowledge, very little research has been done in Canada investigating dyadic processes or conversations between parents and SGM youth following the youth’s disclosure of a minority SOGI-status (i.e., non-cisgender and/or non-heterosexual identity). By addressing the relational dimensions of these parallel adjustment processes, and examining common goals and actions, this research may help us to gain insight into factors 10 within parent-child relationships that affect relationship quality, and consequently, parental and youth adjustment. This study was undertaken to fill an important gap in the literature and better equip professionals, such as counsellors, to provide skillful support to SGM youth and their parents. By addressing the pervasive issues of heterosexism and transphobia in society, this research has important social implications. 11 Chapter 2: Literature Review The aim of this chapter is first to present the historical and sociocultural context for SGM individuals who reside in Canada. This is important as the research takes place within an overarching social context that impacts the experiences and interactions of participants. Secondly, a review of the literature surrounding some of the unique issues faced by SGM youth, such as stigma-related stress, is presented. Thirdly, the relevant literature on “coming out” and identity development for SGM youth is discussed in terms of the evolution from early linear models of identity development toward contemporary models that accentuate within-group diversity, fluidity, context, and multidimensionality. Fourthly, the relational processes between parents and SGM youth are explored, and qualitative research on youth-parent adjustment processes is discussed. Finally, theoretical frameworks that provide a means of understanding relational processes occurring between parents and SGM youth are discussed. A Shifting Sociocultural Landscape Individuals who identify as SGM are a highly diverse group of people. What is unfortunately shared across the spectrum of SGM people is a barrage of sociocultural expectations around how to internalize, embody, and enact gender and sexuality – expectations that lead to silencing and shaming of those who don’t comply. For much of the 20th century, homosexuality in Canada was viewed as a mental illness, and was criminalized until 1969 (Alderson & Oxenbury, 2015). The field of psychology supported this pathological view by including homosexuality as a mental disorder in the first edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (DSM, American Psychiatric Association, 1952). Evelyn Hooker’s research (1957), which indicated that there were no mental health differences between gay men and heterosexual men, supported an increase in political activism in the 60s and 70s surrounding 12 sexual minority rights. Consequently, in 1973, the DSM removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders (American Psychiatric Association, 1973). The American Psychological Association followed suit in 1975 and established a mandate – through research and clinical practice – to work toward the removal of the stigma associated with homosexuality (American Psychological Association, 1975). The 80s and 90s saw a movement away from viewing sexual minorities as inherently pathological or deviant toward research attempting to understand the lives of sexual minority individuals within a context of societal marginalization and oppression, the effects of which led to difficulties in adjustment. Scholars have referred to this as moving from a “sickness” to a “species” script regarding the conceptualization of homosexuality (Hammack et al., 2013). Transgender and gender diverse people have been, and continue to be, pathologized by the medical community. In 1980, transgender identity was referred to in the DSM as “gender identity disorder” (American Psychiatric Organization). In the revisions for DSM-V, this was changed to “gender dysphoria” (American Psychiatric Organization, 2000). Thus, the DSM has perpetuated the notion that there is something “wrong” with being transgender. While “dysphoria” might be an improvement to disorder, it continues to perpetuate the association of transgender identity with illness (Rotzinger, 2018). Since the 1980s, the Canadian Psychological Association (CPA, 2016) has released statements in support of successive legal advances for sexual minority individuals. However, the CPA was slower to create policy statements around gender identity, and in 2010 released a statement entitled “Gender Identity in Adolescents and Adults” which states that “all adolescent and adult persons have the right to define their own gender identity regardless of chromosomal sex, genitalia, assigned birth sex, or initial gender role. Moreover, all adolescent and adult persons have the right to free expression of their self-defined gender 13 identity” (Canadian Psychological Association, 2010, para. 1). Gender identity and expression were added to the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code in 2017 as a prohibited form of discrimination (Bill C-16). Legal recognition, however, has not translated into acceptance as discrimination and violence against transgender and gender diverse people continues at high rates in Canadian society (Wells et al., 2017). Canada, a country where SGM residents are legally protected from discrimination in employment and housing, and where “same-sex” marriage has been legal since 2005, is known worldwide to be highly accepting of diversity. On the one hand, SGM individuals are legally recognized and protected from discrimination; however, overt discrimination and micro-aggressions continue to occur throughout Canadian society – in schools (Peter et al., 2016; Taylor et al., 2011), places of work (Bowring & Brewis, 2009), and in the family system (Saewyc et al., 2007). Unfortunately, laws designed to protect marginalized members of society do not always translate into widespread societal acceptance of these members. Recent census data indicate that Canada's SGM population is now at 1 million; however, as the population rises so does the number of hate crimes against members of the SGM population (Boisvert, 2021). Mulé (2015) points out that Canada’s health care system has been developed within a cisgender and heterosexist framework that continues to create health disparities for SGM individuals. He notes that Canada presents “. . . a near utopian veneer that serves to mask continuing forms of oppression and micro-aggressions that simmer from below” (p.27). In schools across Canada, homophobic and transphobic bullying continues to occur regularly (Peter et al., 2015). Taylor et al. (2011) surveyed 3700 Canadian students about their experiences of homophobia and transphobia at school. The results of this survey indicated that most SGM students in Canadian schools have experienced discrimination based on their SOGI 14 status. For example, 48% of survey respondents reported hearing derogatory comments such as “faggot” and “dyke” regularly at school, 21% of SGM students reported being physically harassed, and 64% of SGM students reported feeling unsafe at school. Fortunately, affirmative SOGI policies in Canadian school districts are resulting in gradual improvements to the school climate for SGM youth (Peter et al., 2016). These affirmative policies have led to initiatives, such as Gay-Straight Alliance or Gender Sexuality Alliance (GSA) clubs, which are now present in many schools across Canada. Research has indicated that, while homophobic and transphobic discrimination and bullying continue to be ongoing issues in schools, SGM youth who attend schools with GSA clubs have more positive mental health outcomes, less suicidal ideation, and fewer suicide attempts (Saewyc et al., 2014). The overarching sociocultural context within which parent-SGM youth interactions take place inevitably impacts how these parents and youth co-construct goals and strategies related to the youth’s SOGI construction process. Broader cultural standards, such as heteronormativity and cisgenderism, influence the relational processes and joint projects that occur between parents and SGM youth. Even the concept of “coming out” is inherently cisgenderist and heterosexist as it contains an underlying assumption that certain people who don’t fit the norm (i.e., people who are not heterosexual and/or cisgender) need to “come out.” Coming out would be irrelevant if SGM youth were growing up in a context that affirmed the entire spectra of sexual and gender identities. Since the sociocultural landscape for SGM people is changing rapidly, research on new cohorts of SGM youth is needed in order to continuously update our understanding of their experience within a novel context (Mustanski, 2015). Disclosure of a minority sexual orientation or gender identity – and even the vocabulary that is used to represent this process – is 15 constructed within a cultural landscape that is continuously changing (Patterson, 2017; Weststrate & McLean, 2010). SGM youth who disclose their minority identity to parents today are doing so within a vastly different cultural context than the SGM youth of the past. Unique Issues Faced by SGM Youth Stigma-Related Stress. Link and Phelan (2001), building on Goffman’s (1963) seminal work, conceptualized stigma as involving labeling, stereotyping, separation, status loss, and discrimination – all of which occur in a context where certain individuals are afforded power and privilege. One popular means of conceptualizing the added burden SGM people face is the “minority stress” model (Meyer, 2003). This model posits that minority individuals experience an elevated level of stress due to their stigmatized and devalued status in society. Minority stress involves distal events, such as acts of prejudice, discrimination, and violence; as well as proximal, or internal, events, such as internalized shame; internalized homophobia and/or transphobia; identity concealment, and expectations of rejection. These contextual and internal processes contribute to a greater amount of stress on individuals, which may tax their coping resources, and lead to lower levels of physical and emotional well-being. Meyer’s (2003) meta-analysis and further research (e.g., Frost, Lehavot, & Meyer, 2015; Katz-Wise et al., 2017b; Mereish & Poteat, 2015; Newcomb et al., 2019) have provided empirical support for the minority stress model and confirmed the negative effects of minority stress on the health and emotional well-being of SGM people. Research by Hatzenbuehler and colleagues (2009) indicated that exposure to stigma-related stress may cause difficulties with emotion regulation, close relationships, and rumination, contributing to a heightened risk of mental health problems for sexual minority individuals. Bisexual individuals have often been neglected in the research on minority stress; however, some research indicates that bisexual individuals (both cisgender 16 and transgender) face some of the highest rates of negative health outcomes among SGM people due to stigma-related stress (Katz-Wise et al., 2017b), and that these challenges persist into older adulthood (Fredriksen-Goldsen et al., 2016). Originally developed to understand how stigma-related stress affects sexual minority individuals, minority stress theory has more recently been applied to understanding how transgender and gender diverse individuals experience gender-related stigma. Preliminary research indicates that transgender people are adversely affected by distal and proximal stressors related to gender identity and/or expression (Hendricks & Testa, 2012; McLemore, 2018; Tan et al., 2020; Testa et al., 2015). Several studies indicate that transgender individuals experience depression, anxiety, self-harm, and suicidal ideation at a higher rate than their cisgender (both heterosexual and non-heterosexual) peers (Bouman et al., 2016; Pflum et al.2015; Carmel & Erickson-Schroth, 2016). Tebbe and Moradi (2016) surveyed 335 transgender individuals in order to investigate the relationship between minority stress and suicide risk. Consistent with minority stress theory, their results show alarmingly high rates of depression (68.5% of the sample) and suicidal ideation (71.9%) among participants. Previous studies have indicated the rate of depression for transgender individuals to range from 48% to 60% (Budge et al., 2013; Clements-Nolle et al., 2006). Due to minority stress and lack of social support, SGM youth may experience high levels of anxiety, such as social anxiety, which may undermine their identity development (Feinstein et al., 2012; Potoczniak et al., 2007; Roberts et al., 2011). Consistent with minority stress theory, SGM individuals may also experience a heightened sensitivity to rejection (Pachankis et al., 2008; Rood et al., 2016) due to living in a cisnormative and heteronormative society. In a self-17 perpetuating cycle, SGM individuals’ hyperawareness of others’ responses may increase the amount of perceived discrimination they experience. Pachankis et al. (2008) described how gay men have experienced rejection based on their sexual orientation not only from their families and peers, but also from themselves via internalized homophobia. Their research indicated that the rejection sensitivity phenomenon experienced by gay men hinders interpersonal relationships by creating fear of negative evaluation by others, and consequently, a higher degree of social anxiety. Similarly, Feinstein and colleagues (2012), in a correlational study with 218 lesbians and 249 gay men, found that internalized homophobia and rejection sensitivity mediated the relationship between discrimination based on one’s sexual orientation and depression and social anxiety. When SGM youth expect rejection from others, they may feel isolated, and become more vigilant – on the lookout for potential threats in the environment, which may lead to a reduction in internal and external coping resources. Living in a cisnormative society with high rates of violence and discrimination against those who do not conform to socially prescribed gender roles causes many transgender people to feel unsafe doing things that most cisgender people take for granted. Rood and colleagues (2016) conducted a qualitative study to better understand proximal stressors, such as expectations of rejection, among 30 individuals who identified as transgender or gender nonconforming. Participants reported that their awareness of violence and discrimination against transgender people resulted in hyper-vigilance and fears of rejection related to most public spaces, such as grocery stores, restaurants, and hotels. Gender-specific public spaces (e.g., restrooms and changing rooms) were especially anxiety-provoking and often avoided. Situations where one’s identity documents, such as a passport or driver’s license, might be checked by officials were 18 also viewed as highly stressful for participants. Workplaces were identified as continuous sources of stress for participants, and some reported concealing their identity at work to protect themselves from discrimination. Encounters with relatives or acquaintances not seen prior to transitioning were described by participants as being a significant source of distress. As one participant said, “Any time I’m in the presence of someone who knew me before. . . it’s almost like every muscle in my body is in a heightened state of alert and my blood pressure, I can almost feel it pumping. Every word they say, every word they don’t say, every flick of their eyes, everything they do is something that I’m focusing on and reading. So, constantly, I’m ready for them to say the wrong pronouns or use the wrong name or speak to me in some negative way even if they haven’t done it or aren’t going to” (p. 157). Even ostensibly affirmative spaces, such as Pride events, were identified as potentially unsafe for participants. When asked where he might expect rejection, one transman in the study said “I would oddly say Pride, and events where it’s LGBT-run or friendly. A lot of our gay brothers and sisters do not want to recognize that we are who we are, and so I choose to be stealth in those environments” (p. 157). When asked how they coped with expectations of rejection, participants reported they would often avoid situations or public spaces altogether. When this was not possible, participants described altering their behavior to reduce the likelihood of experiencing a potentially stressful social encounter. For example, one participant described how they waited until no one was around to use a public restroom and remained vigilant while they were using the restroom. Another participant described how they put on headphones at the gym to avoid hearing negative comments directed towards them. Many participants coped with expectations of rejection by using various substances, such as alcohol and cigarettes. Participants of color reported expecting rejection based on past experiences of race-related discrimination. Interestingly, they reported 19 that these experiences helped them prepare for the discrimination they encounter as a transgender person. Rood and colleagues (2016) point out that further research is needed to better understand the effects of proximal stressors and their associated emotions (e.g., fear, hypervigilance, sadness, and anger) and to find ways to mitigate the damaging effects on transgender people. Riggs and Treharne (2017), while recognizing the importance of the minority stress model (Meyer, 2003), are critical of its focus on intrapersonal factors such as internalized homophobia and expectations of rejection as primary mediators of social stress for marginalized people. Riggs and Treharne (2017) take the position that stigma- and prejudice-related stress (i.e., proximal and distal stressors) need to be understood as originating from social norms and institutionalized ideologies that push people into minority positions in society. According to these scholars, focusing on intrapersonal factors and assuming individuals choose to respond in different ways to minority stress, de-emphasizes the insidious social processes responsible for the stress. They assert that a primary objective in scholarship on SGM people must be the dismantling of social norms that perpetuate the marginalization of individuals who don’t fit restrictive (e.g., cisnormative and heteronormative) criteria; and suggest making forms of privilege explicit in theories of stigma-related stress. Individual coping and resilience are important subjective factors in Meyer’s model; however, little attention is given to how Whiteness or other forms of privilege might be protective factors for some sexual minority individuals. For example, being a White gay Canadian man comes with privilege that may protect the individual from some forms of stigma and prejudice – protection that might not be afforded to a transwoman with a non-binary partner who has recently immigrated to Canada from Sri Lanka. As relational-cultural theorists (e.g., Hartling et al., 2004) point out, shame is used by dominant groups in society to maintain systems of privilege. Shame is an insidious emotion that 20 causes people to hide or conceal aspects of their being from others. Shame fuels disconnection at a time when support and affirmation from others is greatly needed. As Hartling and colleagues state: “Shame is directed at marginalized groups and serves to put and keep them in a place of disempowerment and silence; they are made to feel that their reality is deficient or lacking. Dominant groups characteristically use shame against subordinate groups to keep them from expressing their reality in a way that would threaten the dominant view of reality” (Hartling et al., 2004, p. 123). SGM individuals are shamed and silenced by dominant groups in society; however, what happens if they are further shamed and silenced by the people who are supposed to love them unconditionally – their parents? Risk, Resilience, and the Need for Social Support. Resilience research is especially important for vulnerable populations who experience stress in their immediate environments (Bariola et al., 2015). Most of the research with SGM youth over the past several decades has focused on risk factors associated with having a stigmatized sexual orientation and/or gender identity (Saewyc, 2011). Some scholars are critical of the focus on risk and recognize the need to shine a light on the strength and resilience of SGM individuals (Asakura, 2016; Horn et al., 2009; Meyer, 2015; Russell, 2005; Savin-Williams, 2005; Schmitz & Tyler, 2019; Watson & Veale, 2018). SGM youth live meaningful, engaged, and healthy lives, with few differences from their cisgender and/or heterosexual counterparts (Savin-Williams, 2001b), and focusing on the negative aspects of their experiences may be contributing to an overarching deficiency discourse. While it is important to better understand the resilience of SGM youth, researchers need to move beyond a risk-resilience dichotomy and develop a more nuanced understanding of SGM youth and how their needs vary depending on the context in which they find themselves (Horn et al., 2009). 21 Kwon (2013) presents a framework for understanding resilience among sexual minority individuals that builds on Cohen’s (2004) work around the importance of social support for coping with difficult life circumstances. Kwon (2013) notes that social support leads to an increasing sense of connectedness and psychological health for sexual minority youth. In addition, it serves to buffer against stigma-related stress by reducing reactivity to prejudice. Kwon’s model also highlights the role of emotional openness, hope, and optimism. By investigating the role of resilience in the lives of SGM people, we may find ways to promote well-being and growth (Meyer, 2015). Resilience factors may buffer the impact of minority stress, and therefore play a pivotal role in ameliorating some of the damaging effects of stigma for SGM people. Singh and colleagues (2014) conducted a qualitative study investigating resilience strategies employed by transgender youth. They found that resilience for these youth was facilitated by the community, family, and peer relationships; and an ability to articulate one’s idiosyncratic sense of gender identity. Some of the perceived threats to resilience reported by participants were emotional and social isolation; challenges related to accessing health care and employment; and gender policing. The minority stress model posits that stigma directed at SGM people causes stress which, in turn, leads to disproportionate rates of physical and mental health problems, and views resilience as a potential buffer against the stigma-related stress (Meyer, 2003; 2015). As Meyer (2015) notes, “resilience really has meaning only in the face of stress, and therefore, it is an essential part of understanding minority stress” (p. 209). Matsuno and Israel (2018) expanded on Meyer’s model with the aim of developing resilience-based psychosocial interventions for transgender people. These scholars compiled psychological research on resilience among transgender youth and developed an adapted minority stress framework called the transgender 22 resilience intervention model (TRIM). Built into the TRIM framework are group and individual resilience factors along with specific interventions that mediate the associations between stressors (distal and proximal) and mental health outcomes. Group level factors identified by TRIM were a sense of belonging in family and community; participating in activism; having role models; and being a role model for others. Individual-level factors associated with resilience are self-acceptance, self-definition, self-worth, and hope. The minority stress perspective (Meyer, 2003) has been an invaluable means of gaining insight into the deleterious effects of stigma and prejudice on SGM individuals. However, it has also meant that less research has focused on processes that may contribute to the well-being of SGM individuals. For example, supportive relationships might counteract some of the negative effects of experiencing stigma and marginalization; however, the minority stress model does not readily account for this possibility. Mohr and Sarno (2016) stated that the “. . . focus on minority stress has left less studied the positive experiences that can emerge as a counterweight to the ill effects of stigma” (p. 106). Research based on the minority stress model has been conducted from an individual differences perspective where the focus is on understanding how minority stress processes (e.g., discrimination, expectations of rejection, and internalized heterosexism) affect SGM individuals in different ways. Mohr and Sarno (2016) integrated the notion of minority support processes into the minority stress model in order to show how these processes may serve to counter some of the minority stressors in the environment which eventually impact a sexual minority individual’s level of internalized homophobia, concealment, expectations of rejection, and general well-being. Minority stress and support processes are framed as identity-salient experiences, which are operationalized as positive or negative experiences that sexual minority individuals have with others that involve becoming aware of their group identity. 23 Utilizing a daily diary method, data were collected on 61 sexual minority young adults for approximately one week. Results of their study indicated that participants experienced an increase in positive affect, less internalized homophobia, and a reduction in expectations of rejection, on days when they experienced positive identity-salient experiences with others. Similar to most studies on the well-being of SGM individuals, this research is correlational, and therefore it cannot be assumed that minority stressors or support processes cause the reported changes in the participants’ sense of well-being. Moreover, the construct of identity-salient experiences may be more complex than simply “positive” or “negative” and, in the cases of pre-existing relationships (e.g., with parents), may involve a dynamic process. This addition to the literature on minority stress does, however, represent an important shift away from an emphasis on separate individual processes and risk. SGM Identity Development Stage Models of Sexual Orientation Development. Stage models of sexual orientation development in the literature typically encompass movement toward greater self-awareness and self-acceptance regarding one’s sexual orientation and culminate in open disclosures to others. Cass’s (1979) model posits that sexual orientation development occurs sequentially and progressively through the following six stages: (1) identity confusion, (2) identity comparison, (3) identity tolerance, (4) identity acceptance, (5) identity pride and (6) identity synthesis. This widely cited model views sexual orientation development from an individual, psychological adjustment perspective and focuses on the resolution of internal conflicts at each stage of development. According to Cass’s (1979) model, the crisis underlying identity formation involves striving for congruence among perceptions of one’s behavior, perceptions of other people’s 24 attitudes, and one’s own self-identification. Initially, individuals become aware of feelings of same-sex attraction which causes confusion. Cass noted that “the realization that feelings, thoughts, or behavior can be defined as homosexual presents an incongruent element into a previously stable situation” (p. 222). In an attempt to resolve the confusion, individuals may choose to reject the possibility of a non-heterosexual orientation and cease further sexual orientation explorations. In contrast, they may decide to further explore their sexual feelings and identity, leading to the subsequent stages of development. When individuals are able to acknowledge their same-sex attraction, they gradually seek out information related to having a non-heterosexual identity and may seek contact with members of the SGM community. At any time, however, individuals may choose to deny their feelings, attraction, or behavior, and put a stop to their identity exploration. Often this occurs due to internalized homophobia and feelings of shame. Contact with the SGM community allows individuals to compare their identity experiences with others, try out various labels, and engage in same-sex behavior or relationships. Consequently, they may begin to have a more positive view of their sexual orientation and begin to disclose their sexual orientation to others. They move from acknowledgement, to tolerance, and then to acceptance, of their identity. Following acceptance, individuals experience a sense of pride, which may entail disdain for heterosexuals, and a feeling of solidarity and loyalty with other sexual minority people. During the final stage an individual’s fully accepted “homosexual” identity becomes synthesized or integrated with the individual’s wider sense of self. Individuals develop a greater sense of peace as they accept their sexual orientation as just one aspect of who they are, and their public and private selves become more harmonious. Cass (1984) developed a questionnaire based on her model in an attempt to validate the six stages. Participants were provided with descriptions of each stage, and asked to identify which 25 stage best represented where they were currently at developmentally. In addition, participants were asked to report on various related factors, such as amount of disclosure to others, social interaction, concealment, and identity evaluation. The results of Cass’s study indicated an association between participants’ reported stage of development and self-reported identity-relevant factors. However, the results indicated that the first and last two stages in Cass’s model could be collapsed, thus resulting in four stages in total. Moreover, since Cass’s study was cross-sectional, the results do not provide us with an understanding of how these stages might unfold over time. Kahn (1991) conducted a study with 81 cisgender lesbian women in order to empirically validate Cass’s (1979) model. Kahn found that, while the stages in Cass’s model fit the experience of many of the participants, the participants’ experiences did not unfold in linear succession, and participants often skipped stages. Stage models of “coming out” were developed within, and thus represent, Western cultural values regarding the nature of “identity” and “identity development.” Cass (1996) asserted that stage models such as hers are a Western phenomenon and are therefore not generalizable to other cultures. However, despite limited empirical validation (Cass, 1984; Kahn, 1991), Cass’s model is the most widely cited model in the sexual orientation development literature and is still commonly referred to by contemporary scholars in developmental psychology, sociology, clinical, counselling, and school psychology. Interest in Cass’s model has likely endured over time due in part to the Euro-western value of “individuating” or developing one’s own independent identity apart from others. There is little attention given to the familial and societal context and its inevitable impact on SGM youth. In addition, the notion of discrete and progressive stages is appealing and has face validity. 26 Cass’s (1979) model, which focused on individual psychological processes and connection to the sexual minority community, did not explore relationships with others to whom the individual is disclosing (Russell et al., 2011). Moreover, it was originally based on a small clinical sample of adult White Australian males and did not consider sociocultural and contextual factors affecting one’s developmental processes. The public appeal of Cass’s model may contribute to parents and youth expecting to pass through the stages and then “recover” and get back to business-as-usual. Moreover, the model assumes that individuals who are unable to navigate each of the six stages are not psychologically stable or adjusted. Lastly, it assumes that if one is highly politically active with regards to their sexual orientation, they will not be able to reach the final stage of integration. Coleman (1981/82) presented a 5-stage model of coming out involving the following stages: pre-coming out, coming out exploration, first relationships, and identity integration. In contrast to Cass’s model, Coleman’s model emphasized the interpersonal context of sexual orientation disclosures. Coleman viewed the responses of others to identity disclosures as important in facilitating sexual orientation development. Prior to coming out, an individual learns “. . . that homosexuality is wrong and that everyone must marry” (p.32) and often feels “. . . different, alienated, and alone” (p.33). Following identification and acknowledgment of same-sex feelings and attraction, individuals may begin to tell others. Coleman indicated that the time of first coming out was critical, and negative reactions could have a powerful impact on the individual. Coleman suggested that if reactions were negative “. . . it can confirm all the old negative impressions and can put a seal on a previous low self-concept” (p. 33). However, if reactions were positive, the person may begin to develop greater self-esteem and self-acceptance; and begin the phase of further exploring and developing their identity. Coleman also stressed that 27 no one was able to develop positive self-concepts in isolation. Rather, one must engage in potentially risky disclosures with others. He recognized that telling parents was very difficult and that the chance of receiving a positive response was minimal. Consequently, he suggested that if individuals told their parents, they did so after having a foundation of positive responses from others. Coleman’s model helped highlight the power of others’ responses in the coming out process; however, there has not been any research to support his model. Similar to Cass’s (1979) model, Coleman’s model emphasized linearity, and was developed during a different sociocultural context and thus may not be relevant to today’s SGM youth. D’Augelli’s (1994) life span model of sexual orientation development represented a slight shift away from Cass’s and Coleman’s linear approach and highlighted six developmental areas that occur throughout a sexual minority individual’s life span: (1) exiting heterosexual identity, (2) developing a personal gay identity status, (3) developing a gay social identity, (4) becoming a gay offspring, (5) developing a gay intimacy status, and (6) entering a gay community. D’Augelli’s model introduced the notion of developmental plasticity, which highlighted how individuals respond in differing ways to the demands of their environment, and in so doing signified a movement toward a more flexible view of sexual orientation development where individual differences abound. D’Augelli’s model was based on the human development perspective, which takes contextual factors into account, and suggests that sexual minority individuals’ idiosyncratic understandings and perceptions of the significant relationships in their lives are important to the coming out process. While D’Augelli’s model represented a step away from the strict linearity of earlier models of sexual orientation development (e.g., Cass, 1979), it continued to espouse the importance of stages, and there has been no empirical research done to validate the model. 28 Early models of sexual orientation development assumed that sexual minority individuals also developed in relation to a wider community or reference group and paid less attention to the experience of women. In an attempt to address these issues, McCarn and Fassinger (1996) developed a lesbian identity development model that consisted of two related but independent pathways – one involving individual factors, such as developing awareness and understanding of one’s lesbian identity, and one involving increasing awareness of and involvement in the reference group (i.e., the lesbian community). According to McCarn and Fassinger, lesbian individuals moved through the following phases: awareness of being different, exploration of feelings and attractions, recognition of the existence of an SGM community, as well as deepening or commitment to and internalization or synthesis of both one’s sexual orientation and one’s identification with a wider community. This model emphasized fluidity, context, as well as individual and group processes (McCarn & Fassinger, 1996); however, it received limited empirical support, and continued to emphasize linear stages of sexual orientation development. Swann and Anastas (2003) found that the stages identified by McCarn and Fassinger (1996) did not correspond to the experiences of same-sex attracted adolescent females. Their findings indicated that more general identity-relevant processes took place for young lesbian individuals, such as: exploring identity possibilities, managing stigma, and consolidating one’s identity. More recent research on women’s sexual orientation development has shown that some cisgender women become aware of same-sex feelings and self-identify as a sexual minority at a later age than their cisgender gay male counterparts (Rosario et al., 2011); and that women may experience fluidity in their sexual orientation development (Diamond, 2008). In addition, some research has indicated that women may experience more emotionally- and relationally-oriented sexual orientation milestones compared with men, who may experience more sexually-oriented 29 milestones (Savin-Williams & Diamond, 2000). Ott and colleagues (2011) investigated sexual orientation stability and change in a cohort (n=13,840) of individuals aged 12-25. They found that females across all sexual orientations exhibited more sexual orientation fluidity than males. Notably, however, when focusing on the fluidity rates reported by sexual minority participants, they found that females and males reported similar rates of fluidity. Models of Transgender Identity Development. Stage models have also been used to describe coming-out experiences for transgender and gender-diverse youth (e.g., Devor, 2004; Gagné et al., 1997; Lev, 2004). Devor (2004), a Canadian sociologist, outlined fourteen stages of transgender identity development based on extensive qualitative interviews with female-to-male transgender individuals. Devor states that “coming to recognize oneself as transsexual (sic) involves a number of stages of exploration and analysis on both an interpersonal and intrapersonal level over the course of many years” (p. 41). According to Devor, “each of us has a deep need to be witnessed by others for whom we are. Each of us wants to see ourselves mirrored in others’ eyes as we see ourselves” (p.41). When others demonstrate that they are seeing our authentic selves, we feel affirmed. In contrast, an incongruence between how others see us and how we see ourselves (i.e., inaccurate mirroring) leads to distress. In the beginning stages of Devor’s (2004) model, individuals experience anxiety in relation to sex and gender, and doubt surrounding the suitability of their assigned gender. They learn that “transgenderism” exists and may feel confused about whether a transgender identity applies to them. The middle stages entail comparison with others, greater self-acceptance, and decisions related to transitioning. Devor notes that many people may decide to not move forward with changes to their gender expression due to factors such as health, family, or finances. Those who decide to move forward with social and/or physically transitioning often face delays related to 30 practical and personal affairs, such as informing family, friends and colleagues. In the final stages of Devor’s model, people experience pride in their post-transition identity and a gradual integration into society as their gender-affirmed self. As Devor mentions, his model is built upon Cass’s (1979) model of sexual orientation development; therefore, many of the criticisms of Cass’s model (e.g., linearity, non-representative sampling, lack of contextual factors) apply to Devor’s model. In contrast to Devor’s model, Lev (2004) takes an ecological, social constructionist, and feminist family systems perspective on transgender identity development. Lev encourages clinicians working with transgender people to recognize that there is nothing inherently pathological about being transgender, and to realize that the rigid societal and familial norms around gender are the root of the suffering endured by most transgender folks. Lev writes: “Developing a gender identity is a normative process that everyone experiences, but for gender-variant people the process is distorted by social expectations and repression” (p. 233). Lev takes a client-centered perspective, simply but profoundly declaring that we need to listen to individuals who have been oppressed so that they can feel heard, affirmed, and – with support – begin living according to their own unique potentials. Lev offers strategies for clinicians to increase understanding, affirmation, and support of their transgender clients, and states the importance of moving “beyond diagnostics into a realm of compassionate, humanistic treatment of the range of psychotherapeutic issues gender-variant people bring to therapy” (p. xxi). Lev (2004) reminds the reader that her proposed stages are meant to describe the experiences of individuals who seek help with their transition and to not assume that everyone would need clinical support. According to Lev, not all people who identify as transgender will socially or physically transition to another gender; however, most will move through a 31 psychosocial process of coming to terms with their gender identity. Lev notes that emerging as a transgender person is different in some respects than coming out as a sexual minority and therefore a framework that outlines the developmental stages of transgender identity development is essential. Unlike some sexual minority people who may be able to conceal their identity, transgender “. . . people who do modify their bodies must engage in a transaction process with others who will witness and react to these visible body changes” (p.233). According to Lev (2004), transgender emergence involves a complex interaction of intrinsic developmental issues and interpersonal transactions. The six stages in Lev’s model encompass movement from denial and self-loathing toward self-respect and gender affirmation. Many variables influence development at each stage, such as ethnic and cultural perspectives on gender; access to treatment; mental health; age; socioeconomic status; marital status; geographic location; religious upbringing; and current spiritual identification. Lev’s “states of emergence” begin with an initial stage of “awareness” where people are usually experiencing heightened distress. Clients at this stage may be experiencing extreme shame, self-hatred, and isolation. The primary therapeutic task during this stage is to normalize and affirm the client’s experience. The second stage is “seeking information/reaching out” where clients acquire information and support related to gender-diverse identities and the primary therapeutic task is to support this process. The third stage is “disclosure to significant others” which involves sharing one’s gender identity with others in their life. The therapist’s corresponding task during this stage is to support the individual’s integration into their family. The fourth stage is “exploration: identity and self-labeling” where various identity labels are tried on for size and the job of the therapist is to support the client’s own understanding of, and comfort with, their identity. The fifth stage is “exploration: transition issues/possible body modification,” where options for physical transition 32 are explored. The therapeutic task is to offer support around client decisions regarding social and physical transitioning. The sixth and final stage is “integration: acceptance and post-transition issues.” Here, the individual integrates and synthesizes their identity, and the therapist supports with adaptational issues related to transitioning. Lev’s model provides an example of what some transgender clients in psychotherapy might be experiencing, and it offers useful suggestions for clinicians. However, it is another example of a step-wise model that may oversimplify identity development processes for transgender and gender-diverse individuals. Bockting and Coleman (2016), in the context of health research, proposed several stages to describe the coming-out process for transgender people. Prior to delineating their stages, they describe how the term “transgender” has evolved since its first use in 1980 to signify a more expansive group of people who may or may not eschew the gender binary; and may or may not desire gender-affirming medical treatments. These scholars draw on Coleman’s (1981/82) model of gay identity formation, as well as Erikson’s (1950; 1968) work, to develop their model of transgender identity development which consists of five stages: (1) pre-coming out; (2) coming out; (3) exploration; (4) intimacy; and (5) identity integration. Similar to Lev (2004), these scholars offer suggestions for health-care professionals who are assisting transgender individuals. In the “pre-coming out” stage, individuals may not be able to articulate their own sense of gender and may feel different due to rigid social expectations of how to “do” gender. In this stage, parents may bring their children to a mental health professional or a medical practitioner with concerns about gender non-conformity, difficulties at school, or mental health issues (e.g., anxiety and/or depression). Adults at this stage may develop coping strategies, such as substance use, to alleviate painful gender dysphoria. Here, the onus is on the health care provider to foster 33 an environment which facilitates movement toward the next stage of development by making space for and accepting “transgender” feelings. In the second stage, “coming out,” individuals acknowledge and begin to disclose their transgender identity. The “acknowledgment” is not a simple process; rather, it comes with challenging emotions, such as confusion and fear, as individuals may face discrimination, rejection from loved ones, and further isolation. The authors state that the developmental task at this stage is to resolve confusion and develop self-acceptance, which may be challenging given the person’s life circumstance. At this time, others’ responses may strongly influence the individual’s developmental trajectory and a negative reaction by significant others can delay resolution of this stage leading to increased shame, isolation and suicidality. According to Bockting and Coleman, clients at this stage should be advised to come out to others who are likely to be affirming of their identities and to prepare for a variety of responses from others. In the third stage of “exploration,” individuals investigate (e.g., through the internet or discussions with others) and learn more about their identity and community. They develop connections with like-minded others and become more confident relating to others in ways that affirm their gender identity. Exploration might also entail experimenting with various gender roles and expressions. Some may be hesitant to enter intimate relationships due to an aversive relationship with their body; thus, it is important at this stage that individuals develop a sense of their own attractiveness and sexual competence. Due to societal pressure to conform to limited gender roles, individuals may feel pressured to express their gender in a highly stereotyped way. The clinician at this stage helps clients to understand and express their identity in a way that fits with their unique experience and assists clients in identifying and managing internalized stigma. 34 The desired outcome of this stage is the development of pride (as opposed to shame) in one’s identity. Following the development of pride and a sense of belonging in the transgender community, the next stage is “intimacy.” Here, the developmental task is to develop intimacy and confront relational fears. According to Bockting and Coleman (2016), transgender individuals who identify as non-heterosexual may find it more challenging to form intimate relationships due to a “double stigma” of minority gender identity and sexual orientation. The final stage of “identity integration” involves a synthesis of the individual’s public and private identities into one. At this stage, the individual has developed a solid sense of their identity and is ready to integrate their consolidated identity into a community where they engage in supportive and intimate relationships. Individuals also have a higher sense of self-worth, freeing up space for the development of a more general sense of identity, rather than one focused on gender and sexuality. At this stage individuals do not place as much emphasis on the reactions of others to their gender expression and misuse of pronouns is not perceived as threatening as it might have been in the past. Bockting and Coleman (2016) state that “the individual no longer leads with shame or with pride, but leads instead with self-acceptance and confidence” and “often has a positive impact on others” (p. 153). Similar to theories on sexual orientation formation, stage models of transgender identity development rely on broad generalizations and imply linear progression towards a cultural ideal; with the subtext being that it is somehow better to be “out” and asserting a particular “identity.” This may perpetuate the view by some (e.g., medical professionals, clinical counsellors, psychiatrists) that “normal” development occurs in stages and cause clinicians to assess and treat based on the perceived stage rather than listen to the idiosyncratic needs of the person before 35 them (Rosqvist et al., 2014). Some models of identity development may present an overly negative picture of life for SGM people. For example, Bockting and Coleman (2016) indicate that transgender individuals who do not identify as heterosexual face a “double stigma” and that this “complicates the task of developing an integrated identity” (p.150). This sounds very dismal; however perhaps one could frame sexual orientation development for transgender youth from a strength-based perspective rather than a deficiency or struggle-based discourse. Could it not be that transgender people are, after learning how to deal with restrictive social norms, better equipped to transcend rigid sexual orientation boundaries, and develop intimate relationships in a way that challenges superficial gender/sexuality norms and leads to a deeper sense of self? The aforementioned models started an important dialogue regarding the processes involved in SOGI development; however, they may not be representative of the coming out processes experienced by many SGM individuals such as women, people with developmental disabilities, bisexual individuals, transgender individuals, and racial-ethnic minorities (e.g., Chan, 1995; Rust, 2003; Thompson et al., 2001). Bisexual individuals, for example, may experience bias and prejudice from society at large as well as from the SGM community. Consequently, it may be difficult for bisexual individuals to develop a connection with community, and they may experience a great deal of distress due to a perceived lack of legitimacy for their identity. Since bisexual individuals may receive less social support than other sexual minority individuals, they may experience a prolonged period of uncertainty regarding their sexual orientation that is not accounted for in stage models (Weinberg et al., 1994). Since many stage models represent the experiences of individuals surveyed by the researchers at one point in time, they are culturally and historically bound (Mustanski et al., 2014). Weststrate and McLean (2010) found evidence that older cohorts of lesbian women and 36 gay men reported cultural memories that revolved around external or political events, such as the Stonewall riots in the United States. In contrast, they found that younger cohorts reported more personal memories, such as coming out, which may indicate that some sexual minority identities have become less culturally defined, and more defined based on personal experiences. In addition, they found that younger cohorts reported a wider array of self-defining events which suggests that younger cohorts of sexual minority individuals may experience a more elaborative process of identity integration than older cohorts. Additionally, research on bisexual men in the United States indicated that older cohorts of these men experienced more prejudice and discrimination from others when coming out compared with younger cohorts. The youngest cohort expressed coming out stories that involved many positive responses from others. The authors attribute these changes to an increased cultural acceptance of same-gender sexuality (McCormack et al., 2014). Narrative Approaches to SGM Identity Development. The sociocultural context surrounding the individual, and the interplay between individual and context has often been neglected in contemporary theories on identity development (McLean & Syed, 2015; Bradford & Syed, 2019). In an attempt to incorporate the ever-present yet shifting role that sociocultural context plays in identity development, scholars have introduced a master narrative framework (Hammack, 2008; McLean & Syed, 2015) where “a master narrative is a culturally shared story that informs thoughts, beliefs, values, and behaviors” (Bradford & Syed, 2019, p. 307). Master narratives are rigid and well-known cultural discourses that are internalized and rarely questioned until they are transgressed. From a narrative perspective, identity development involves a negotiation between one’s personal sense of identity and the master narratives available in one’s culture. Aspects of the master narrative are often incorporated into one’s 37 personal narrative, sometimes even unconsciously. Since master narratives do not always represent diverse life experiences, some groups of people, such as SGM individuals, may construct alternative narratives in order to have a sense of legitimacy in society (Bradford & Syed, 2019). Cohler and Hammack (2007) noted that historical events and cultural discourse are integral to identity development for sexual minority people. These scholars document how master narratives related to sexual orientation have shifted tremendously over the past several decades thereby impacting the life stories of SGM youth. According to Cohler and Hammack, individuals carve out a sense of personal meaning based on cultural discourses and relay this in their life stories. They suggested that the classic master narrative of the 20th century describing the experience of sexual minority people was one of “struggle and success.” This life story entails discovering oneself amid an ongoing struggle with societal stigma and marginalization. After engaging in the struggle, one usually achieves a sense of self-actualization which often involves coming out to others and becoming a member of the SGM community. According to Cohler and Hammack, an “emancipation” master narrative has more recently emerged, where sexual orientation is not considered integral to one’s identity and individuals, therefore, do not need to self-identify (or come out to others) based on socially constructed sexual orientation categories. Youth may choose to draw on either master narrative to create meaning out of their unique personal experience (Hammack et al., 2009). According to Cohler and Hammack (2007), some youth will draw on the struggle and success master narrative and self-identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual (or another identity label), whereas other sexual minority youth may choose to identify with the emancipation narrative and, as a result, eschew identity labels. 38 Bradford and Syed (2019) recently proposed a narrative framework for understanding transgender identity development. Similar to narrative approaches for sexual orientation (e.g., Cohler & Hammack, 2007), Bradford and Syed sought to investigate the master narratives available to transgender people in the United States; and understand how these master narratives influence transgender identity development. They identified cisnormativity – the assumption that everyone is cisgender – as a master narrative that negatively affects transgender people’s personal narrative development. Transnormativity, or the assumption that transgender people need to choose one gender and transition socially and physically into that role, was identified as an alternative narrative. Participants in their study described how cisnormativity was so pervasive and rarely questioned that cisgender people in their lives found it hard to even consider that there were alternatives to this narrative. Additionally, participants described the alternative narrative of transnormativity as legitimating some transgender identities more than others, especially those who adhered more strictly to binary notions of male and female. Narrative perspectives highlight the role that cultural-historical factors play in identity development for some, mainly American, individuals. They do not, however, attend to the ongoing close relationships in the lives of SGM youth that also shape their development. Multidimensional Models of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Development. Contemporary SGM scholarship has been shifting towards seeing SOGI development as a highly idiosyncratic, multidimensional, and ongoing process where each decision to disclose or conceal is made within a context with many different variables and depends on the intersection of various identities (e.g., Fassinger & Arseneau, 2007). Intersectional perspectives view identity development as a dynamic process where the meaning of one identity, such as sexual orientation, depends on its intersection with other identities, such as gender identity, race, ethnicity, 39 socioeconomic status, and disability. Individuals are seen as actively engaging in the construction and maintenance of their identity categories (Shields, 2008). Intersectional perspectives, while yet to offer a comprehensive model of SOGI development, help describe the experiences of racial and ethnic minority individuals who also identify as SGM people. Taking an intersectional perspective, Bowleg (2008), building on Crenshaw’s foundational work (1991), pointed out that the development of an SGM identity varies depending on the racial or ethnic group with which one identifies and other factors such as socioeconomic status. Multiple identities (e.g., black + lesbian + woman), rather than being additive and mutually exclusive, are interwoven and interdependent. Bowleg asserts the importance of researchers “. . . making the intersections between ethnicity, sex/gender, sexual orientation (to name just a few) and the social inequality related to these identities, explicit” (p. 322). Bowleg contended that quantitative, and some qualitative methods that utilize structured interviews, may hamper efforts to understand the experiences of people with multiple identities. The additive approach views each stigmatized identity as being isolated as well as ordinal (e.g., transgender first, and then bisexual). However, it is important for research participants to be able to express their identity experiences naturalistically, without being asked research-imposed questions that elicit answers artificially corresponding to each separate identity. Qualitative research methodologies, given their focus on exploring individual experience, may be a promising means of better understanding the experience of SGM individuals who have multiple social identities, especially if they allow room for the participants to describe their unique experiences (2008). Moreover, since identities are invoked in relational spaces, parent-youth conversations may be especially helpful in elucidating the experiences of SGM youth with multiple identities. 40 “Coming out” is seen in the literature as an important element in SOGI development. It is, however, a Western social construction and may not be relevant to other cultural groups. For example, it may not be important or psychosocially beneficial for individuals from certain cultural backgrounds (e.g., more family-centered and less individualistic cultures) to disclose a minority sexual orientation (Chan, 1995; Rust, 2003). Furthermore, the implicitly valued goal of being “out” that is contained within stage models of coming out is culturally bound and may not be a sought-after goal in other cultural contexts (Rust, 2003). Lastly, it is important to note that, since heterosexual and cisgender individuals do not need to “come out” as straight or cis, the notion of coming out reinforces heterosexual and cisgender privilege in society by putting the onus on marginalized individuals to define themselves according to socially constructed and limiting categories (Benozzo et al., 2015). Coming Out to Parents Coming out to parents is a significant milestone for many SGM youth (D'Amico et al., 2015; Ryan et al., 2009, 2010; Savin-Williams, 1989, 1994, 2001a, 2003; Savin-Williams & Dubé, 1998; Willoughby, Malik, & Lindahl, 2006). SGM youth report experiencing a great deal of anxiety regarding anticipated disclosures of their SOGI to parents. In some cases, this anxiety is due to perceived or real fears that there may be negative consequences, such as rejection or abuse, following the disclosure. Since the parent-child relationship is an important source of stability and support, the youth may fear that the disclosure will prompt a rupture that will forever impact their ability to be connected with one or both of their parents (Goldfried & Goldfried, 2001). Furthermore, for some SGM youth, the family of origin may provide a means of affirming a racial or ethnic identity. These youth not only risk losing support from their 41 parents, but they also risk losing an important foundation of their ethnic minority identity (Potoczniak et al., 2009; Savin-Williams, 2003). The coming out process can be highly challenging for SGM youth if they expect that they may face rejection by parents (Heatherington & Lavner, 2008). Parental support and acceptance are correlated with higher levels of self-esteem among SGM youth, greater life satisfaction, and may buffer the deleterious effects of stigma that lead to the development of poor physical and emotional health often seen in the literature (Feinstein et al., 2014; Needham & Austin, 2010; Newcomb et al., 2019; Pollitt et al., 2017; Poteat et al., 2011: Ryan et al., 2010; Simons et al., 2013; Veale et al., 2015; Westwater et al., 2019). Lower levels of parental support, involvement and closeness are associated with higher rates of depression and risk behaviors, such as substance use, among sexual minority youth (Pearson & Wilkinson, 2013). While parents’ initial reaction to their child’s SOGI disclosure is often negative, research indicates that these initial reactions, such as shock, anger, and grief, often give way to tolerance and in many cases to complete acceptance and affirmation of SGM youth (D'Augelli et al., 2010; LaSala, 2010; McConnell et al., 2016 Samarova et al., 2014). One population-based survey in Canada found that 70% of transgender youth felt misunderstood by their family, and 1 out of 3 participants reported lacking an adult they could talk with about problems (Veale et al., 2015). Grossman and colleagues (2019) collected data on parental responses to youth aged 15-21 who identified as transgender. According to the participant reports, less than half of their parents had provided them with positive responses regarding their gender identity, with mothers reported to be slightly more positive in their responses than fathers. Parental support was associated with less stress related to identity disclosures, fewer symptoms of depression, and less parental abuse. 42 Several studies have investigated adult SGM individuals’ perceptions of parental acceptance retrospectively. One study found that relationships with mothers improved more than relationships with fathers for sexual minority youth (Savin-Williams & Ream, 2003). Another study noted that relationship quality remained fairly stable for some families, while other families experienced either improvement or deterioration over time (Beals & Peplau, 2006). Studies of individual variables with sexual minority youth have indicated that mothers are more likely to be told before fathers and are less likely than fathers to react negatively to the disclosure (D’Augelli et al., 1998; Maguen et al., 2002). However, in contrast, Savin-Williams (2001a) conducted interviews with 165 sexual minority youth and his results indicated that mothers exhibited an initially more negative response than fathers following disclosure. Other researchers (e.g., Hillier, 2002; D’Augelli et al., 2005) have found similar levels of acceptance among mothers and fathers, leading scholars to question whether gender is predictive of accepting or rejecting responses when a youth comes out (Heatherington & Lavner, 2008). Regarding race and ethnicity, limited research has indicated that racial or ethnic minority individuals may be less likely to come out to their parents when compared with White individuals. In one study of 2700 sexual minority American adults, for example, White men and women reported the highest rates of disclosure to parents (77% and 80% respectively). This was followed by Latin American men (69%) and women (72%), African American men (62%) and women (61%), and Asian/Pacific Islander men (51%), who indicated the lowest rates of coming out to parents (Grov et al., 2006). Acceptance by parents of their sexual minority children has been shown to reduce the stress associated with verbal victimization by others (Hershberger & D’Augelli, 1995) and increase self-acceptance (Bregman et al., 2013) and closeness in relationships with parents 43 (Goodrich, 2009; Gonzalez et al., 2013; Savin-Williams & Dubé, 1998). Parental support has also been found to be strongly associated with positive emotional well-being for transgender and gender-diverse youth (Eisenberg et al., 2017; Gower et al., 2018; Katz-Wise et al., 2018; Olson et al., 2016; Veale et al., 2017). Bregman and colleagues (2013) examined the role of parental support in identity development for sexual minority youth. Participants described their level of acceptance of their sexual orientation based on indicators of internalized homophobia, degree of concealment of their sexual orientation from others, and concerns with acceptance of their sexual orientation by others. In addition, participants reported on parental rejection and social support from their families. Their results indicated that youth who had recently disclosed their sexual orientation to a parent were more likely to experience struggles related to their identity. Consistent with other research, participants in this study were more likely to endorse an “affirmed” identity profile if they experienced more support from their parents. Researchers have begun to investigate the notion of sexuality-specific social support, which refers to support that is affirming of one’s sexual orientation (Doty et al., 2010; Sheets & Mohr, 2009). For example, if parents were to openly discuss dating and relationships challenges with their non-heterosexual youth, this would constitute an example of sexuality-specific support. This line of research suggests that targeted support may be more effective in buffering the minority stress faced by sexual minority youth. Further research is needed to examine what sexuality-support might actually look like as it unfolds over time in the context of a parent-youth relationship. Research has indicated that sexuality-specific social support is only effective if it is perceived by the receiver to be supportive (Doty et al., 2010). Thus, more important than the 44 actual parental behaviors exhibited toward their child, would be the perceptions the youth hold regarding what those behaviors mean, and their thoughts and feelings about those behaviors. Non-verbal behaviors would also be highly relevant in forming perceptions of what might constitute authentic support in the minds of youth. Since expectations of rejection have been noted among SGM populations (e.g., Feinstein et al., 2012), it may be possible that certain parental behaviors would be construed as inauthentic or rejecting by the youth when the parent believed their actions to be indicative of acceptance. While parents may assume that they are being supportive by asking certain questions or listening attentively, they will not actually know if their behaviors are effective unless they inquire about their child’s perceptions of these behaviors. Without this feedback, parents may continue to provide ineffective “supporting” behaviors that are actually considered unsupportive by the youth. Travers and colleagues (2012) found that transgender youth (n=433) who reported that their parents were supportive had higher self-esteem and life satisfaction than those who did not perceive their parents to be supportive. Perceived parental support was also associated with lower levels of depression and fewer suicide attempts. Alarmingly, 57% of participants who perceived their parents as unsupportive had attempted suicide. When parents were perceived to be supportive, however, the attempted suicide rate fell to 4%. Johnson et al. (2020) interviewed 24 ethnically diverse transgender youth (aged 16-20) in urban centers in the United States with the aim of better understanding how specific parental behaviors or attitudes were perceived by transgender youth. Most participants reported struggling with depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation due to stigma and discrimination; however, their parents’ affirmation and support helped them to deal with stigma-related stress and feel more hopeful about the future. Participants 45 identified parent actions, such as using their chosen name and pronouns, learning about transgender issues, and advocating on their behalf, as supportive and identity-affirming. In a study with 245 SGM youth, Snapp and colleagues (2015) compared parental support with peer and community support. They found that, while all types of sexuality-related support are beneficial for SGM youth, family support appeared to have the greatest influence on positive outcomes, such as higher self-esteem, for these youth. Puckett and colleagues (2019), in an online survey of 695 transgender individuals, examined how various types of social support (i.e., family, friends, and community) contribute to resilience. They found that family support had the most powerful effect on participants’ emotional well-being (i.e., symptoms of anxiety and depression). Notably, family support was the only type of support found to be correlated with resilience when controlling for the other forms of support (i.e., community, friends). These scholars recommended a more holistic approach to studying resilience in transgender people in order to better understand how factors, such as family support, affect the well-being of transgender people. There is a dearth of longitudinal research on family support for transgender and gender-diverse youth. McConnell and colleagues (2016) conducted a longitudinal study in the United States with 232 SGM youth aged 16-20. Participants were divided into three clusters based on the amount of support they reported receiving from others at baseline: (1) generally low social support; (2) generally high social support; and (3) low family support but high support from others such as peers. Data were collected over five and a half years. Youth with little or no family support reported the greatest amount of distress across the entire length of the study. Youth who were not initially supported by their family reported gaining family support across the duration of the study. The authors concluded that family support is critical for SGM youth, 46 noting that youth who had initially lacked family support but had other forms of support, reported less psychological distress and greater family support over time. Youth who remained low in all types of social support continued to report high levels of psychological distress. Limited Research on Parent Responses to SGM Youth Several scholars have noted that there is a paucity of research on the parents’ experience of the youth’s SOGI construction or coming out process (Heatherington & Lavner, 2008; Newcomb et al., 2019; Savin-Williams & Dubé, 1998). Until recently, most studies have focused on parental acceptance of a child’s sexual orientation (i.e., LGB identity) thereby neglecting the experiences of parents with children or youth who may identify as transgender or gender diverse (Abreu, 2019). Some research has indicated that the parental adjustment process is highly variable and may depend on a host of factors such as parents’ religious beliefs and engagement with the SGM community (Rosenkrantz et al., 2020; Savin-Williams & Dubé, 1998). In addition, parents may experience a wide range of negative emotions, such as guilt, fear, and confusion (Saltzburg, 2004) as they move through phases of adjustment leading towards a greater sense of understanding and acceptance (Phillips & Ancis, 2008). Recently, van Bergen and colleagues (2021) investigated parental responses to three different age cohorts of sexual minority youth, with youth between the ages of 18 to 25 representing the youngest cohort. They found that, while parents were somewhat more affirming of the youth in the youngest cohort when compared with individuals in older cohorts, parents continued to exhibit invalidating responses to their youth. Thus, even though the social context may be improving for younger generations of sexual minority youth, there is still a lack of SOGI affirmation existing in many families. Parents may go through a coming out process that is similar to the youth’s process (LaSala, 2010). Initially, parents may not feel comfortable disclosing their child’s SOGI-status to others, 47 such as friends or relatives, and will instead choose to conceal this information or to disclose selectively based on their knowledge of the person’s attitudes or beliefs regarding sexual orientation. Throughout this process, they may experience various emotions, such as anger, sadness, self-blame and denial, as well as fears that their child will be victimized (Savin-Williams, 2001a, Tyler, 2015). In contrast to the potential difficulties faced by parents, positive aspects of the parental adjustment process have been noted by some scholars. Gonzalez and colleagues (2013) surveyed 142 parents of SGM children and found that many of these parents reported positive aspects associated with parenting a child who identifies as an SGM individual. Parents reported experiencing personal growth in the form of greater open-mindedness, compassion, and awareness of discrimination. Additionally, these parents reported experiencing many positive emotions, such as pride and unconditional love, as well as closer relationships with their family members. Qualitative Research on the Coming out Experience Several qualitative studies have been conducted on parental responses to their child’s disclosure of a minority gender identity (e.g., Abreu et al., 2019; Pullen Sansfaçon, 2021), sexual orientation (e.g., LaSala, 2010; Wakeley & Tuason, 2011) or both (e.g., Tyler, 2015). This section highlights a few of these studies as a comprehensive review is beyond the scope of this paper. LaSala (2010) outlined four stages of family adjustment following the youth’s disclosure of a minority sexual orientation: family sensitization, discovery, recovery, and renewal. Tyler (2015) identified five phases involved in coming out to parents as an SGM: out to self, out to parent(s), relational tension, relational adjustment, and evolving relational identity. Recently, Abreu and colleagues (2019) conducted an extensive review of qualitative studies on parental responses to their transgender or gender-diverse children. These authors outlined four sets of 48 experiences that were shared by parents in many of the studies: initial experiences, transformation processes, positive outcomes, and influences on the process. What appears common across these studies is (1) an initial, often stressful period consisting of nascent SOGI-related awareness for both youth and parents; (2) confirmation of and meaning-making around the youth’s SOGI; and (3) dynamic relational processes, both positive and negative, that may lead to a strengthening of the relationship. Prior to coming out, some SGM youth reported feeling accepting of their newfound identity awareness, while others felt embarrassed, conflicted, and ashamed of this awareness (Tyler, 2015). During this time, some youth experienced prejudice events, such as rejection by peers, and were left to cope without the support of their parents due to fears of possible rejection (LaSala, 2010). Parents often reported having a degree of awareness of their child’s minority sexual orientation, and in some cases, became more distant from their children during this time (LaSala, 2010). Parents of transgender youth reported noticing that some of their child’s behavior did not conform to cultural expectations around gender and they reported experiencing a wide range of emotions related to this awareness (Abreu, 2019). Many SGM youth reported that coming out to their parents was highly stressful for them – a time when they experienced symptoms of anxiety and depression (LaSala, 2010), and fear of negative responses from parents (Tyler, 2015). Parents – even those who were highly accepting – reported responding to the youth’s minority SOGI disclosure with a wide range of concerns: worries about their child’s well-being and safety, fear that their child might be discriminated against by others, and worry about how they might manage disclosure of their child’s SOGI to others (LaSala, 2010; Tyler, 2015). Tyler stated that “. . . in responding to their child, parents seemed to also be responding to a mental picture of what they perceived their child’s life would 49 be like as an LGBTQ individual” (2015, p. 29). Many parents and youth experienced tension, conflict, and emotional distancing in their relationship immediately following the youth’s disclosure (LaSala, 2010; Tyler, 2015); however, a few families reported closer relationships immediately following confirmation of the youth’s sexual orientation (LaSala, 2010). While coming out was experienced as a relief by some transgender youth, their parents, in contrast, often struggled to accept their child’s gender identity while outwardly displaying acceptance and support (Pullen Sansfaçon, 2021). Additionally, many parents of transgender children reported having their own coming-out process replete with challenges such as isolation, stigma, and rejection from various people in the community, such as friends, health-care professionals, and school staff (Abreu, 2019). After coming out, SGM participants reported utilizing social media to locate resources for their parents (Tyler, 2015). Many parents found support through community organizations and health-care professionals, and they began to come out selectively to others (Abreu, 2019; Tyler, 2015; LaSala, 2010). Parents of transgender youth reported seeking information and resources in order to develop new skills and knowledge related to gender diversity; and many were able to develop more flexibility in their thinking and beliefs around gender (Abreu, 2019). Over time, many parents reported responding to their children in ways that reassured their support and enhanced connections (LaSala, 2010). However, parents continued to have concerns regarding their child’s safety and well-being, and potential hurdles they may face in the future due to having a stigmatized identity (Tyler, 2015). Parents of transgender youth experienced varying durations of adaptation but most developed greater acceptance for their child over time (Abreu, 2019). For some parent-youth dyads, navigating the gender journey together was a 50 pathway for overcoming their disparate adaptation processes and strengthening their relationship (Pullen Sansfaçon, 2021). The results of the above studies indicate that coming out is an ongoing and dynamic relational process. However, in all of these studies, youth and parent participants were interviewed separately. This research strategy is important in maintaining confidentiality among individual participants and reducing the chance of an inauthentic report (e.g., a parent acting supportive in front of their youth while inwardly struggling with acceptance; or conversely, a youth stating that their parent is supportive in their parent’s presence when the youth’s actual perception is different). However, our understanding of these relational processes might be further illuminated by conducting research on actual conversations between the youth and their parents. Transition to Adulthood for SGM Youth Transition to adulthood often involves navigating changes in relationships with parents. Moreover, life transitions, such as the transition to adulthood, are often accompanied by an increased risk for mental health problems (Schulenberg et al., 2004). For SGM youth, who may already be at an increased risk for mental health problems, due to minority stress and limited external supports (Meyer, 2003; Saewyc, 2011; Rood et al., 2016), this transition might present an added burden of stress. On the other hand, the transition to adulthood also presents potentially positive and novel experiences for SGM youth that might be identity-affirming, such as meeting peers with similar interests, engaging in community activities, and finding meaning in education, work, or personal relationships. The normative (and in many cases heteronormative) tasks of early adulthood, such as finding an occupation, developing intimate relationships, and becoming a parent, may present 51 challenges for SGM youth and their relationships with their parents (Needham & Austin, 2010; Patterson, 2007; Torkelson, 2012). Young SGM people, when considering career options, for instance, may consider whether a particular workplace is diverse and affirming of SGM people. In order to obtain support from a parent regarding issues such as these, the youth and parent must have a fairly strong relational foundation. However, research has indicated that emotional distancing occurs between parents and SGM youth when the youth have not disclosed their identities to a parent (Savin-Williams, 2003). Consequently, it may be more challenging for SGM youth to obtain support from their parents in certain areas of their lives during the transition to adulthood. Furthermore, they may not be able to discuss romantic relationships with their parents if they do not feel safe sharing their SOGI-status (Savin-Williams, 2003). Failure to acknowledge a youth’s SOGI-status by parents can lead to distancing and reduced communication. However, acceptance and affirmation of a youth’s identity may cause families to strengthen and become more cohesive as a result of the disclosure and adjustment processes (Willoughby et al., 2008). Theoretical Frameworks for Understanding SGM Youth-Parent Relations When conducting research on parent-youth relationships, it is important to ground the research in a theoretical framework. Willoughby et al. (2008) noted that parental reactions to coming out may depend on a variety of factors. These researchers utilized family stress theory as a framework for understanding the reactions parents might have following the discovery that their child identifies as a sexual minority, and how these parental reactions might impact the family and the child. Drawing on correlational studies, they suggest that parental responses to coming out depend on (a) the resources that are available to the family at the time of disclosure; (b) the meaning the parents attribute to their child’s sexual orientation disclosure; and (c) the 52 number of co-occurring stressors that are simultaneously taxing the family’s ability to cope with stress. Chrisler (2017) indicated that earlier theories explaining parent responses to a child’s non-heterosexual identity disclosure focused on the challenges associated with these experiences and didn’t provide room for positive action processes. After conducting an extensive review of the literature, Chrisler developed a theoretical framework for understanding parental responses to having a child who identifies as a sexual minority (i.e., LGB). Chrisler’s framework highlights a number of factors that affect the parent adaptation process, such as: contextual factors (e.g., the passage of time, cultural beliefs, and individual parent characteristics); uncertainty reduction behaviors (e.g., actions with a goal of checking out suspicions related to their child’s sexual orientation); confirming actions (e.g., directly or indirectly finding out about the youth’s sexual orientation); appraisal actions (e.g., considering the new information and what it means to them in terms of their values and beliefs); responding actions (e.g., neutral, positive and negative responses to their child’s sexual orientation); coping behaviors (e.g., avoiding the topic of sexual orientation or thinking about what the new information means to them); and reappraisal actions (e.g., creating further relational meaning around their child’s disclosure). This novel framework is helpful for conceptualizing and understanding the multidimensional processes involved in youth coming out to parents; however, the framework focuses on individual experiences (i.e., the parent’s responding) and assumes that the youth who are coming out as LGB and the parents who are receiving this information are identifying as cisgender. Most research on relationships between SGM youth and their parents following the youth’s coming out has examined individual perceptions, and consequently has not investigated the dynamic relational elements involved in the coming out process. Moreover, the research on 53 coming out has been largely atheoretical or has taken place with an implicit “developmental milestones” framework (Saewyc, 2011). Over the past few decades, there has been a significant shift in the literature toward more dynamic and holistic frameworks for conceptualizing parent-youth relationships. Conceptualizing relational phenomena, such as youth coming out to parents, in terms of linear causality (e.g., the youth’s disclosure caused the parent to react a certain way, or the parent’s rejection caused the youth’s depression), is not representative of actual human relationship processes. Since change is omnipresent – in individuals as well as in the context – relationships between parents and youth are always dynamic. In the social relational model of human development, uncertainty, discontinuity, and instability across time are expected, whereas in correlational research instability may be viewed as measurement error (Kuczynski & De Mol, 2015). The social relational model thus represents an important theoretical advancement, one that provides a deeper and more nuanced understanding of parent-youth relationships. Social relational theory (Kuczynski & De Mol, 2015) underscores the necessity to view relationships as ongoing dynamic processes where individuals in a relationship are part of a whole in which bidirectional influences are continuously impacting one another and shaping the nature of the developing relationship. While parents may have more power than the youth, both the parents and the youth are able to exert agency whereby they each actively contribute to the construction of the evolving relationship, with its past accumulation of interactions and its expectations of future interactions (Hinde & Stevenson-Hinde, 1987; Lollis, 2003). Agency, which encompasses cognition, motivation, and behavior, is neglected in the literature on SGM youth and their parents. How might the youth themselves influence their parents’ interactions with them following coming out? Perhaps, for example, the youth is experiencing a great deal of internalized shame, and as a result, is withdrawing from communicating with their parents (Frost 54 & Meyer, 2009; Herek et al., 2009). In contrast, if a youth explains to their parents that they are comfortable with their identity, and frame the disclosure in a positive light, might the parent be more apt to respond optimistically? In social relational theory (Kuczynski & De Mol, 2015), relationships are viewed as existing within a never-ending dialectic where contradiction leads to novel relationship syntheses. Conflict is seen as inevitable due to interactions where the parent’s needs or goals are different from those of the child. Further, conflict is viewed as not necessarily detrimental to the relationship; rather, it may serve to create positive change and bring individuals closer together. Related to conflict is the notion of expectancy violations (e.g., Collins & Luebker, 1994), where an individual receives information that violates the relational status quo. For example, changes in an adolescent or young adult may lead to new behaviors that are in stark contrast with the pre-existing mental image the parent had of the child. This contradiction might provoke conflict and emotional distress; however, a novel groundwork for interaction occurs following the parent’s adaptation to the new reality. The parent does this by gaining a deeper understanding of the child’s behavior by interpreting new meaning from the behavior. While parents may initially perceive changes to be negative, over time, they may develop a new sense of understanding of their child. The concept of expectancy violations is highly relevant to relationships between parents and SGM youth. Parents may have assumed that their child was heterosexual and/or cisgender, and thus the discovery of a minority SOGI would present an expectancy violation or contradiction to previously held beliefs about their child, which might lead to conflict. This conflict, in turn, has the potential to lead both the parent and child to a novel way of relating to one another. 55 Contextual Action Theory Kuczynski’s social relational theory (Kuczynski & De Mol, 2015) views parents and youth as active constructors of their social and relational worlds. In order to focus more on the co-construction of action and meaning, it is helpful to turn to a different theory that will elucidate the joint processes parents and youth engage in related to the process of coming out. Moreover, since coming out and SOGI construction are goal-directed phenomena, it will be helpful to utilize a theory that highlights the agency or intentionality of human behavior, but that does so by prioritizing the joint nature of goal-directed behavior. While the process of coming out usually begins intrapersonally, it is through relationships where the meaning related to coming out is negotiated. How do parent and youth actions over time become a joint project related to coming out? How do parents and youth negotiate meaning around the socially constructed notions of gender/sexuality and coming out? How do the parents' and youth’s internal processes (i.e., thoughts and feelings) come into play during their interactions? One promising theory that offers a means of investigating these important questions is Contextual Action Theory (CAT; Young et al., 2021), which focusses on the joint construction of action, goals, and meaning in relationships. CAT (Young et al., 2021) provides a means of understanding and describing the SOGI construction or coming out process in a way that captures actual human experience. What sets CAT apart from other theories is its emphasis on the goals of human behavior, rather than relying solely on causal or correlational explanations of behavior. While CAT does not discount the importance of the causes and correlates of behavior, it prioritizes explanations based on goal-directed actions. Instead of making a priori assumptions regarding what “successful” adjustment might look like, or delineating common stages that some individuals typically pass through, CAT 56 provides a description of what is actually occurring as it unfolds over time, especially as it occurs in joint actions and projects. Richard Young and his colleagues have used CAT as a framework for exploring relevant projects during the transition to adulthood, such as education, career development, peer relationships, and parent-youth relationships (e.g., Marshall et al., 2008; Young & Valach, 2004; Young et al., 2008). CAT therefore provides a unique and potentially beneficial framework for understanding the relational processes involved in a youth’s SOGI construction or coming out process. Moreover, CAT is situated well among other prominent theories that view socialization generally, and parent-child relationships specifically, as exemplifying dynamism, dialectics, and discontinuity (e.g., Kuczynski & De Mol, 2015). CAT views both parents and children as agentic and relational beings. The context for human action (e.g., cultural, familial), with its built-in supports and limitations, is continually influencing the developmental processes of both parents and children. The primary assumption of CAT is that human action is goal-directed; and that feelings, thoughts, and social meaning are integral to canalizing and constructing action (Young et al., 2005). CAT provides a comprehensive conceptual framework that consists of (a) perspectives on action; (b) hierarchical organization of action; and (c) systems of action. Perspectives on Action: Behavior, Internal Processes, and Meaning. According to CAT, human action can be understood from three perspectives: (a) manifest behavior: the observable sequence of verbal and non-verbal behavior involved in human action; (b) internal processes: the cognitive and emotional processes that are experienced during human action, and that guide and steer action; and (c) social meaning: the social significance or understanding of action within micro- and macro-social contexts (Young et al., 1996). Human action is meaningful to social actors and observers in a given context. Just as words gain meaning through the sentences in 57 which they are embedded, human actions gain relevance and meaning within the social and cultural context in which they are found. From a CAT perspective, actions engaged in related to SOGI construction are emotionally and cognitively steered, and regulated, by the youth. For example, the choice to disclose to an individual may depend on various internal factors, such as the youth’s feeling that they can trust the person, and speculation regarding the likely reaction or response the person may have following the disclosure. As mentioned previously, thoughts and feelings may cause a person to avoid identity-related disclosures with others who they believe cannot be trusted (Hatzenbuehler et al., 2009; Meyer, 2003; Pachankis, 2007). In addition to internal processes, action also depends on the availability of internal and external resources, skills and habits, as well as both conscious and unconscious processes. Given the ubiquitous nature of cisgenderism and heterosexism in society, SGM youth lack resources that are automatically conferred onto their cisgender and heterosexual counterparts. For example, SGM youth may need to conceal their identity in certain situations or fear rejection from others based on their identity (Pachankis, 2007; Rood et al., 2016). Furthermore, stigma-related stress may hinder SGM youth’s ability to regulate their emotions (Hatzenbuehler et al., 2009). Since SGM individuals may be prone to social anxiety and hyper-sensitive to rejection, they may interact in a way that is self-protective (Pachankis, 2007; Potoczniak et al., 2007; Rood et al., 2016) but that undermines their ability to engage in goal-directed projects with others. Systems of Action: Action, Project, and Career. In order to elucidate how dynamic action processes unfold over time, CAT views human action temporally in a tripartite system consisting of actions, projects, and careers. Actions involve short-term, goal-directed behavior, and occur individually or jointly. A project refers to several actions that occur over a middle-length period 58 of time and revolve around an overarching goal. Lastly, a career refers to a project or projects that endure over an extended period of time under an overarching goal. In this context, career does not necessarily refer to occupation; rather, it involves a continuing series of actions and projects that occur over a long period of time within a major domain in one’s life. For example, a youth and parent may engage in projects related to the youth’s education, career, and independence. All of these projects might fall under the life-long career of maintaining a strong relationship with one another (Young et al., 2011). Levels of Action: Elements, Functional Steps, and Goals. Dividing a stream of human action into its constituent parts is a difficult task (von Cranach et al., 1982). Outside of its context, a slice of human behavior may prove very difficult to understand. Action, from a CAT perspective, is divided hierarchically into three levels of organization: (a) action elements, (b) functional steps, and (c) goals. The meaning of the action is more readily apparent at each succeeding level of organization. Action elements refer to observable physical and verbal behavior. Asking a question, providing information, and expressing joy are some examples of action elements. In order to understand the meaning of action elements, it is necessary to move to the next level of action organization: the functional step. Several action elements that occur consecutively and serve a common purpose comprise a functional step. For example, a son asks his mother if he can borrow money, explains why he needs the money, and expresses joy when she hands him a twenty-dollar bill. These elements together can comprise the functional step of asking one’s parent for money. Goals represent the highest level of action organization and provide a context for understanding the functional steps. Goals are hierarchically arranged; that is, some goals take precedence over others and may endure over longer periods of time. 59 From a CAT perspective, youth SOGI construction or the process of “coming out” can be conceptualized as being, at least partially, a parent-youth project. However, it is important to keep in mind that the youth and parents are likely engaged in several other projects simultaneously. While some of these projects may be related to the youth’s goal of coming out and asserting their identity, others may not. Past research supports the notion that individuals understand their actions and projects to be goal-directed and has identified relevant parent-youth projects related to governance transfer, relationship growth, and career exploration (Young et al., 2001, 2008). CAT and Identity: Bridging an Epistemological Divide CAT may be situated in a way that avoids the ongoing debate between essentialism and social constructionism concerning SOGI (DeLamater & Hyde, 1998). Given its unique epistemology that views knowledge as occurring through action processes (Young et al., 2005), its relational focus, and its moderate social constructionist grounding (Flum, 2015), CAT is uniquely situated to offer a non-polarized and action-focused account of SOGI construction. CAT scholars note that the theory “avoids leaning too far one way or the other (Essentialist or Narrativist) in understanding identity,” (Young et al., 2010, p.89) and attempts to find a middle ground. From a CAT perspective, identity is conceptualized as having a temporal dimension where short-term actions develop into mid-term projects. One criticism of social constructionist or narrative approaches to identity is that they do not address the stable or continuous dimensions of identity. This runs counter to the subjective experience of many individuals who perceive their SOGI to be fairly consistent over time. How is an identity that is constantly changing also enduring over time? CAT addresses this conundrum by viewing identity as consisting of enduring aspects (i.e., goal-directed actions) that occur over mid- and long-term periods of time. 60 At the same time, it is recognized that there are a multitude of processes (e.g., social, cultural, historical) continually influencing the expression or construction of one’s identity. A Closer Look at CAT and its Applications to SGM Youth-Parent Processes SGM identity development is not a simple manner of (a) realizing one is non-cisgender and/or non-heterosexual, and (b) disclosing this realization to others. Rather, it involves engaging in dialogues with others, and reflecting on the social messages around oneself (e.g., Manning, 2015). Thoughts and feelings guide actions. For example, if a youth hears their father make a transphobic comment about a neighbor, the youth may assume that their father would not accept their gender fluidity, and may consequently choose to conceal this aspect of themselves. The youth may also worry that, if their father finds out their secret, he may no longer want to support their education. Thus, the youth’s goal of obtaining an education would possibly be thwarted if their father found out about their gender identity. Disclosure of one’s SOGI is influenced by one’s goals. For example, one may have goals such as wanting to share one’s inner world, become closer to another individual, or have one’s identity affirmed and supported (Bregman et al., 2013). When youth decide to come out to parents, they may have a relational goal, such as becoming closer to their parents. Youth may also have a goal of sharing a romantic relationship with their parents. Some youth may have the goal of being more open with their parents. These examples of goals will potentially guide the actions and projects youth engage in with others as they navigate the coming out process. In turn, parents will have their own set of goals guiding their actions. From a CAT perspective, following the disclosure of the youth’s minority SOGI, joint goals and projects will emerge that reflect the underlying goals of each individual. For example, the youth’s goals may shift depending on how they perceive their parent’s response to their 61 disclosure. If SGM youth perceive their parents to be unsupportive, they may have the goal of distancing from their parents; or, in contrast, they could have a goal of educating their parents on SGM issues. Parents, on the other hand, may have the goal of showing an accepting stance toward their child overtly while covertly processing any difficult feelings they may be having regarding the disclosure. In addition, the parent may have a goal of protecting their child from harm, such as stigma and prejudice. An overarching joint project that might emerge could be a relational project, whereby both youth and parent share the goal of strengthening their relationship. Alternatively, a distancing project might emerge whereby the youth and parent share the goal of avoiding each other to maintain the relational status quo. Research on parent-youth conversations can investigate whether there are joint parent-youth projects that impact the youth’s SOGI construction, and/or the parental adjustment processes. If such projects do exist, we can examine the processes they entail and endeavor to find ways of best describing them. We may find that there are super-ordinate projects in which a coming out project, adjustment project, or stigma management project is embedded. In order to focus the investigation on the goal-directed actions and projects occurring in parent-youth dyads, the following two research questions were proposed for the current study: (1) What joint actions and projects do SGM youth and their parents engage in that are relevant to the youth’s “coming out” process and/or SOGI construction? and (2) How are these joint actions and projects constructed, organized, and implemented over time? Conclusion The historical and sociocultural context for SGM individuals is constantly shifting, and while SGM youth living in Canada today experience a more supportive socio-political climate than they did in the past, heterosexism and transphobia remain widespread. Due to stigma-related 62 stress, SGM youth are at a greater risk than cisgender and heterosexual youth for victimization and mental and physical health challenges. SOGI development processes are no longer viewed as linear, stage-like, or static, but rather as complex dynamic processes that are unique to each individual and context. Protective factors, such as parental support, may help to buffer the damaging effects of stigma-related stress and facilitate SGM youth’s coming out process. Most of the research on relational processes between parents and SGM youth is correlational and focuses on individual retrospective reports that describe what happened in the past. While these studies are helpful in providing an understanding of SGM youth-parent relationships, novel theoretical frameworks are needed that conceptualize these processes in terms of joint action as it unfolds in real time. CAT offers a promising means of understanding SGM youth-parent relationships in terms of co-constructed and goal-directed joint projects. 63 Chapter 3: Method The purpose of this study was to gain a better understanding of youth SOGI construction within the parent-youth relational context. The study attempted to answer the following two research questions: (1) What joint actions and projects do SGM youth and their parents engage in that are relevant to the youth’s “coming out” process and/or SOGI construction? and (2) How are these joint actions and projects constructed, organized, and implemented over time? To address these questions, I have selected cases, or dyads, that are illustrative of the phenomenon under investigation by utilizing the multiple case study approach (Stake, 2005). The qualitative Action-Project Method (A-PM) guided the data collection and analysis procedures for each specific case (Young et al., 2005). Research Design Instrumental Case Study. Case study research is a qualitative research approach that involves studying a phenomenon within a real-life context, and while some may employ it as a research methodology, it also provides a means of determining what specifically will be included in a research study (Stake, 2005). The case study approach has been used in many different disciplines, such as psychology, medicine, law, political science, anthropology, and sociology (Creswell, 2013). The intention of case study research is an important factor when designing a study (Creswell, 2013). The purpose of an intrinsic case study is to describe thoroughly a unique or unusual case that, due to its novelty, calls for close inspection and scrutiny. In contrast, an instrumental case study is employed when the researcher’s intention is to understand a specific problem or issue, and one or more cases are selected to better understand the issue. A single instrumental case study involves examining a single case to illustrate the issue, whereas in a multiple case study, several cases are selected in order to examine the issue. The intention of this 64 study is to better understand the phenomenon of youth SOGI construction within the parent-youth relational context by examining several cases (parent-youth dyads); consequently, the purpose of this study is in line with a multiple instrumental case approach. In a multiple instrumental case study, several cases that are representative of the phenomenon under investigation are selected in order to better understand a particular issue or concern. For this study, cases were chosen for their ability to provide a deeper understanding of the joint action and projects engaged in between SGM youth and their parents following the youth’s disclosure of a minority SOGI status. The case study approach guided the choice of what was studied – i.e., the specific cases that are illustrative of SGM youth-parent action processes. By examining differences and similarities in cases, it is possible to have a more nuanced understanding of the phenomenon of study (Stake, 2005). As mentioned in Chapter 2, research on SGM youth and their parents has largely centered on individuals, which may seem counterintuitive, as coming out to others is inherently relational. Consequently, parent-youth dyads, and not individuals, were chosen as cases for this study. Whereas the case study design determined the specific dyads and provided data for inclusion in the study, the A-PM guided the data collection and analysis procedures involved in this study. It is important to stress that, in the present study, the author used the case study design strictly as a means of identifying the cases to be studied and Stake’s (2005) method of data analysis was not employed. Instead, the method used to collect and analyze the data for this study was the A-PM. The Action-Project Method. The A-PM, which is theoretically grounded in CAT, provided a specific method for examining youth SOGI construction as a parent-youth project over time. Even though youth SOGI construction and coming out to parents are continuous relational phenomena, the literature review revealed that little is known about SOGI-specific joint projects 65 in which youth and their parents engage. The A-PM provides a sophisticated means of accessing and describing individual and joint actions and projects. It has been utilized in family, health, and counselling-related research for more than two decades, and is recognized as a useful tool for studying dyadic processes between youth and their parents (Marshall et al., 2012; Young et al., 2007; 2008; 2011). By viewing action as the unit of analysis, and social context as inseparable from action, the A-PM enables researchers to investigate the relational processes occurring between participants. The A-PM is particularly useful for investigating close human relationships (Young et al., 2005). The method has previously been used to analyze relational health-related projects and career development projects (Marshall et al., 2008; Young et al., 2001; 2006; 2008). These studies indicate that relationships are integral in developing, implementing, and carrying out goal-directed projects. The A-PM provides an integrative and holistic methodology for analyzing action from the perspectives of manifest behavior, internal processes, and social meaning. Conceptualizing phenomena, such as coming out and SOGI construction, as action-oriented systems situated in a dynamic and impinging social context, enables researchers to carefully examine the joint action and shared meaning involved in these relational endeavors, without being limited to a unidirectional understanding of relational processes (Young et al., 2005). Epistemological Framework and Ontology CAT and the A-PM represent a post-modern research framework. They can be broadly placed within the realm of idiographic and emic research perspectives. An idiographic perspective focuses on understanding each individual as a unique entity, and an emic perspective involves looking at behavior or constructs that are found within a specific context and are not generalizable (Ponterotto, 2005). CAT and the A-PM, however, do not fit neatly within one of 66 the traditional research paradigms, such as positivism, postpositivism, constructivism-interpretivism, or critical-ideological (Young et al., 2005). Since CAT views the social world as being constituted through everyday actions, it is informed by social constructionism and constructivism, while not strictly locating itself within a social constructionist or constructivist paradigm (Young et al., 2005; Young & Popadiuk, 2012). CAT and the A-PM may be more optimally viewed as a unique epistemological framework or system of knowing where human actions are seen as the primary constituent in knowledge formation, and goals, rather than causes, are used to explain human action (Young et al., 2005; Young & Popadiuk, 2012). From a CAT perspective, youth SOGI construction (including the youth’s coming out process) is viewed as a goal-directed action process. However, the youth’s actions do not occur in a vacuum; rather, they occur within a relational space, in this case with their parents. Joint actions that share a common theme and are constructed over time are conceived of as joint projects. The joint projects occurring between parents and youth are described in terms of goals, meaning (both personal and social), functional steps, and specific behaviors. Additionally, individual skills, as well as internal and external resources will inform the description of the joint projects. The A-PM is relativistic in its ontology and views social realities as being co-constructed through action. Furthermore, CAT offers an ontological stance that “has a more explicit ontology than most constructivisms” (Young, et al., 2005, p. 218). Specifically, this involves humans’ experience of themselves and others on a day-to-day basis and the continuous interpretation of the meaning or significance of these experiences. To gain insight into the meaning of human action, it is necessary to observe, analyze, and interpret human action as it is situated contextually and historically, and in terms of its intentional and goal-directed nature (Young et al., 2005). 67 Participants Since the overarching focus of the A-PM – from the initial research questions to data collection, analysis, and reporting of data – is on the joint processes occurring in a dyad, it is the dyad itself that was considered as the participant in this study, and not each individual. For this study, each dyad was composed of one SGM youth and one parent (see Appendix A for recruitment poster and Appendix B for telephone screening forms). Six parent-youth dyads were recruited for this study. The youth participants in the present study met the following inclusion criteria: (a) self-identify as non-heterosexual and/or non-cisgender (they may or may not choose to assign a sexual minority label to themselves, such as gay, lesbian, bisexual; or a gender identity label such as transgender, gender fluid or non-binary), (b) be between the ages of 15-25, (c) have disclosed their non-heterosexual sexual orientation and/or non-cisgender identity to the participating parent, and (e) be in fairly regular contact (i.e., communicating at least once a week) with the participating parent but not necessarily living with the parent. The parents of the youth participating in this study met the following inclusion criteria: (a) have spent at least 5 years living with the youth in a parenting role prior to the youth’s coming out, (b) be in fairly regular contact with (i.e., communicating at least once a week), but not necessarily living with, the participating youth (c) be willing to discuss their youth’s coming out process. Finally, the dyad as a unit needed to exhibit an interest in having a conversation with one another that is related in some way to the youth’s SOGI or coming out processes. Recruitment Procedures Participants were recruited through local community organizations, Gay-Straight Alliance clubs in secondary schools, and university campus organizations (e.g., Out on Campus at Simon 68 Fraser University and Pride UBC at the University of British Columbia). In addition, posters were placed on university and college campuses and distributed to church youth organizations in the Fraser Valley to reach participants outside of the Lower Mainland (see Appendix A for recruitment poster). Youth and/or parents, if interested, were able to contact the primary researcher by telephone or by email to indicate their interest in the study or to ask any questions about the study. An honorarium of $50 per person was provided for this study. Some barriers to recruitment for this study were: (a) the sensitive nature of the topic and an unwillingness to openly discuss sexual orientation and gender identity; (b) the time-consuming nature of the study and the degree of commitment involved; and (c) an unwillingness to be video-recorded. Recruitment had initially targeted youth who identified as sexual minority individuals (i.e., individuals who identify as non-heterosexual); however, following consultation with stakeholders in the community, and approval from the Behavioral Research Ethics Board at the University of British Columbia, recruitment opened up to all SGM youth, i.e., individuals who identify as sexual and/or gender minority individuals. Data Collection Procedures The A-PM has a comprehensive yet flexible protocol for data collection where data are collected from multiple perspectives on action: manifest behavior, emotional and cognitive processes, and social meaning (Young et al., 2005). Typically, the data are collected over a period of approximately ten months, and participants meet the researchers on three separate occasions during this time frame. In two of the meetings, participants engage in a video-recorded conversation. However, for the purpose of this study, the researcher met in person with participants on two separate occasions, and the dyad was involved in only one video-recorded conversation, similar to Polak (2014). In addition to the primary researcher and the research 69 supervisor, one volunteer research assistant also took part in data collection and analysis. This volunteer research assistant was a graduate student with training in the A-PM, and she had worked as a research assistant on previous studies using the A-PM. She also expressed an interest in working with the SGM community and had volunteer work experience at a community organization that supports the SGM population. The primary volunteer research assistant was unavailable to interview one of the dyads; consequently, another volunteer with training in the method substituted for her at that time. The data analysis involved a team approach where members of the team may disagree with one another’s analysis before arriving at a consensus. Data collection occurred in three distinct phases (see Fig. 3.1 and Appendix D). In the first phase, there was a warm-up introductory interview between the dyad and the researchers. Immediately after the warm-up interview, the youth-parent dyad engaged in a video-recorded conversation. Following the conversation, each member of the dyad separately viewed the conversation on video and provided information regarding their internal processes at the time of the conversation. This is known as the video-recall or self-confrontation interview. The second phase of the study occurred one to two months following the first meeting. At this time, the researchers met with the dyad and provided them with feedback regarding the conversation from the first meeting. This included the identification and description of the relevant joint projects in which they are engaged. In the third phase of the study, the researcher contacted each participant by telephone on four separate occasions in order to monitor the progress of the joint project. 70 Fig. 3.1 Data Collection Procedures Phase One. The first interview took place at the University of British Columbia. During the first interview, the researchers first went over informed consent, and participants were given time to address questions or concerns about the study. In addition, it was re-iterated in the first interview that participation in the study was voluntary and that participants may, at any time, and without explanation, choose to withdraw their participation from the study. The first interview was video and audio-recorded and consisted of three main components: the warm-up interview, the conversation, and the video-recall interview. Warm-up interview The purpose of the warm-up interview was (a) to facilitate the participants’ comfort with the research procedures and orient them to the process; (b) to get a glimpse into the existing relational processes between the parent and youth; and (c) to facilitate a conversation that may involve discussing issues related to (either directly or indirectly) the youth’s sexual orientation, gender identity, coming out, and/or the parents’ adjustment processes related to this. The researchers attempted to help the participants to feel comfortable having a typical conversation Phase 1Initial Interview:-Warm-up -Video-recorded conversation-Video-recallPhase 2 Second Interview:- Individual narrative reviews- Joint narrative reviewPhase 3Telephone Monitoring:- 4 telephone calls over 4-8 months71 even though they were in unfamiliar surroundings with a video camera pointing toward them. The researchers did this by asking questions such as the following: What issues have you been discussing with one another recently? What issues do you think might be important to discuss that are related to (youth’s) gender identity and/or sexual orientation or coming out? Can you think of a recent conversation that you had that was related to (youth’s) gender identity and/or sexual orientation or coming out? Think about some topics you have both discussed recently – would you be able to have a similar conversation now? The duration (in minutes) of warm-up interviews is presented in Table 3.1. Video-Recorded Conversation Following the warm-up interview, the participants engaged in a video-recorded conversation in the researchers’ absence. Participants were informed that these conversations typically last from 12 to 15 minutes and that they were free to choose to end the conversation at their discretion. The mean length for the 6 video-recorded conversations was 18 minutes (see Table 3.1). 72 Table 3.1 Duration of Research Interviews for the First Two Meetings Note: Interview duration is shown in minutes; SD=Standard Deviation Table 3.2 Duration of Interviews for Telephone Monitoring Calls Note: Interview duration is shown in minutes; Y=Youth participant; P=Parent participant; SD=Standard Deviation 1 12 14 39 45 422 16 16 42 34 383 46 20 66 75 694 29 16 90 49 545 23 17 64 70 626 47 27 81 105 56Total 173 110 382 378 321Mean 29 18 64 63 54SD 15 5 20 26 12Case1st Meeting 2nd MeetingWarm-UpVideo-Recorded ConversationVideo Recall YouthVideo Recall ParentNarrative Reviews (Member Check)Y P Y P Y P Y P1 22 18 15 10 13 16 25 232 15 18 12 15 10 16 19 203 12 45 14 34 18 42 21 484 17 38 24 32 28 46 35 415 14 25 15 28 13 38 23 316 14 53 15 42 13 56 28 64Total 94 197 95 161 95 214 151 227Mean 16 33 16 27 16 36 25 38SD 4 15 4 12 6 16 6 17CaseTelephone MonitoringCall 1 Call 2 Call 3 Call 473 Video Recall Interview Immediately after the conversation, each participant met separately with one of the researchers in order to watch a video recording of the conversation. During the video-recall interview, one research assistant and one participant viewed the recently video-recorded conversation together on a laptop computer. The researcher stopped the conversation at approximately one-minute intervals and invited the participants to describe what they were thinking and feeling at that particular moment in the conversation. The participant was also invited to pause the conversation at a time of their choosing and add any relevant thoughts and/or feelings. The purpose of the video recall interview was to collect data on participants’ internal processes (i.e., emotions and cognitions) as well as data on social meaning (Valach et al., 2002; Young et al., 2005). The mean duration of the video recall interviews was 63 minutes for parent participants and 64 minutes for youth participants (see Table 3.1). Phase Two. Approximately one to two months after the first meeting, following transcription and data analysis of the conversation and video-recall interview, the researchers met the participants again to discuss the projects that were identified during the initial conversation (see Table 3.1) At the beginning of the meeting, the parent-youth dyad met with the researcher to discuss the procedures for the second interview. Following the group discussion, the researcher presented each participant with a narrative summary that was based on the video-recorded conversation and the video-recall interview from the first meeting. The individual narrative is a one- or two-paged double-spaced document that describes the goal-directed action engaged in by each person during the conversation. This narrative was presented privately (i.e., in the other participant’s absence) and the participant was reminded that their individual narrative is 74 confidential and that they do not have to share it with the other participant. Additionally, the participant was invited to edit, modify, or add to the narrative. Following the presentation of the individual narratives, the participants and researcher reconvened, and the researcher presented the joint narrative to both participants simultaneously. The joint narrative is similar to the individual narrative; however, it outlines the joint actions and projects in which the participants are engaging. The dyad was asked to review the joint narrative and to provide feedback or make changes. This member-checking process is important as it ensures that the projects which were identified by the researchers match the actual experience of the participants – both individually and jointly. The researchers edited the individual and joint narratives based on any feedback received from participants. Phase Three. In order to follow the identified joint project over time, this study included a telephone monitoring period following the second interview. Participants were contacted by telephone on four occasions, once every one to two months. Each participant was contacted individually by telephone at a time of day that was convenient for the participant (see Appendix E for the telephone monitoring form). This monitoring was an important part of the data collection process, as it provided insight into the goal-directed action processes that occur over time. Moreover, the data collected from telephone monitoring provided further information on the projects that were identified in the first interview, and whether these projects have changed over time. During the final telephone call to participants, each was asked to verbally provide feedback on the study and thanked for their participation in the study. Table 3.2 shows the duration of each of the four telephone calls with participants. Notably, the telephone calls with parent participants were of longer duration than calls with youth participants: The mean duration for the youth calls was 18 minutes whereas the mean duration for parent calls was 33 minutes. 75 Procedures for Data Analysis The Action Project Method (A-PM) was utilized for analyzing each case or dyad. Following transcription of the warm-up interview, conversation, and video-recall interview, all of the data were reviewed extensively in order to identify participants’ individual and joint goals and projects. Similar to hermeneutics, the researchers moved back and forth between the data and the contextual action theoretical framework in order to reflect on and monitor the interpretations that were made based on the data (Young et al., 2005). The primary researcher and the volunteer researcher reviewed the conversation and coded each segment of the conversation according to action elements, functional steps, and goals that were evident in the conversation. While the conversation between the youth and parent was the primary source of data, the warm-up interview and video recall interview were also highly valuable sources of data. The warm-up interview provided important data on the dyadic relational context, and the video recall interview that followed the conversation provided data on participants’ internal and subjective processes that may have influenced their goals and actions in the conversation. The A-PM has a comprehensive protocol for analyzing the data where dyadic action is considered to be the unit of analysis. The analysis involved coding each one-minute segment of the action based on its various levels, including behavioral elements, functional steps, and goals. Behavioral elements were extracted from an a priori list of relevant codes that were based on previous studies using the A-PM with youth and their parents (e.g., Marshall et al., 2008; Young et al., 2001; 2006; 2008). The list of elements assisted the researchers in identifying the most basic units of observable verbal and non-verbal behavior, and researchers were free to add to the list if there was a particular element not represented in the a priori list of codes. Some examples of elements that were coded are: “provides information,” “asks a question,” and “laughs” (see 76 Appendix G for a list of the elements used in coding). Before coding specific action elements, the researchers immersed themselves in all of the data to develop a more global understanding of the social significance or meaning of the conversation as well as the general goal-directed actions and intentions of the participants. Functional steps were identified by interpreting from the data how participants were attempting to achieve their goals. For example, a functional step might be “bringing up the topic of what to say to the grandparents.” Functional steps answer the question: Why might the participant have used these elements? After elements and functional steps were coded, participants’ goals were identified. To aid in identifying goals, the researchers answered the question “Why did the participant use that functional step?” For example, the participant’s goal might be to express concern over the grandparents’ potential response to the youth’s SOGI disclosure. The video recall interview was divided into segments corresponding to the coded segments in the conversation. The data from the video recall interview provided information on internal processes and social meaning and facilitated the identification of individual and joint goals that were present in the conversation. Throughout this process, the primary researcher and co-researcher were able to agree or disagree with one another’s interpretations and engaged in a discussion in order to arrive at a consensus regarding the data analysis. Following the analysis of the data, an individual narrative summary was written in accessible language for each participant that described the participant’s goals in the conversation, and the functional steps that were taken to achieve those goals. In addition, information from the video-recall interview was used to describe the participant’s thoughts, feelings, and goals. The individual narrative included information on each participant’s current life situation, such as 77 demographic information, and a description of their adaptation processes related to coming out that occurred prior to engaging in the research study. In addition to the two individual narratives, one joint narrative was written that delineated the functional steps and joint goals undertaken by both participants in the conversation in order to arrive at an identified joint project. Similar to the individual narrative, the joint narrative summary was written from the perspective of functional steps and joint goals that were identified during the coding and analysis. The joint narrative firstly provided information on each participant’s current life situation and relationship to the research topic. Secondly, the joint narrative described the interaction patterns between the youth and parent, and the functional steps that led to their joint goals in the conversation. Lastly, the joint narrative outlined the identified joint project that related to the youth’s SOGI construction or coming out process. As previously mentioned, participants were invited to edit the narratives as well as provide feedback on their experience reading the narratives. In Phase Three of the study, the telephone monitoring phase, further information was gathered regarding the identified joint projects (see Appendix E). Following the collection of all the data and the final telephone call, the data for each dyad was comprehensively reviewed (see Appendix F). This within-case analysis involved a detailed discussion and elaboration of the joint projects that were identified in Phase One of the study and followed through until the end of Phase Three. Through a deep immersion in the data, the researchers discerned relevant constructs that emerged from the data. The final stage of data analysis involved a cross-case analysis of the entire data set which involved reviewing and comparing the joint projects from each dyad in order to reveal commonalities among the projects. An important part of both within-case and cross-case analysis involved the formulation of what Stake (2005) refers to as assertions. Assertions are regularly employed in multiple case 78 study designs, and represent a synthesis of the researcher’s observations and interpretations of the data as it relates to the research questions. Similar to conclusions, assertions provide the researcher with a means of distilling their learning. The assertions are noted at the end of each within-case analysis and at the end of the cross-case analysis. It is important for the reader to be aware that these assertions represent the researcher’s interpretations and understanding of the data; however, the reader may draw different conclusions based on their understanding of the data. Considerations of Trustworthiness and Rigor Determining the validity and rigor of qualitative research involves evaluating the findings in terms of their authenticity and their ability to resonate with the lived experience of others (Lincoln & Guba, 2000). The fulfillment of these criteria rests largely on rigorous application of the method and the quality of the interpretations offered by the study. Contextual action theorists assert that the A-PM demonstrates rigor through its comprehensive and systematic protocol for data collection and analysis, where the same action is analyzed via three different perspectives – manifest behavior, internal processes, and social meaning (Young et al., 2005). Furthermore, participants are invited to take part in the analysis of the data by engaging in the video-recall, narrative feedback, and telephone monitoring portions of the study. By involving participants during each phase of the study, the researchers can ensure that their interpretations are in line with the participants’ actual experience. For example, in Phase Two of the study, participants were invited to share thoughts on the narrative summary and make changes to bring it more in line with their experience. Furthermore, the researchers were trained to carefully examine the data systematically and were encouraged to discuss their interpretations with one another in order to arrive at a consensus. 79 The A-PM focuses on actions that occur in daily life, and consequently, are representative of actual human experiencing. Interpretations based on the data are considered reasonable as they are stated in language that humans typically use to describe their own day-to-day life (i.e., goal-oriented) and are reflective of participants’ unique lived experience. Furthermore, the A-PM is grounded in CAT, which has been supported empirically in multiple studies (Young et al., 2005; 2021). CAT aids the researcher at every step – through the development of the research questions and into the analysis of the data – where researchers regularly move from the data to the theory in order to arrive at their interpretations. Significance of the Study The present study offers insight into the actual relational processes occurring between SGM youth and their parents following a SOGI minority disclosure by the youth, and what might be serving to help or hinder the youth and the parent’s adjustment processes. To my knowledge, there have not been any studies examining the joint, goal-directed projects of SGM youth and their parents. As mentioned in Chapter 2, coming out is a socially constructed phenomenon. This research study may contribute to the literature by providing novel language for describing these processes in a way that resonates with actual human experience. The language of CAT is expressed in a way that people themselves would use to describe their own and others' behavior and to make sense of the world around them. Expanding the discourse on coming out to include that of goal-directed action may also inform research in other areas, such as stigma management, emotion regulation, and resilience. Taking a novel perspective may also help us to move away from the dominant narrative that highlights the risks associated with being an SGM youth, or the loss and grief associated with being the parent of an SGM child. The results of the study might 80 lead us toward further research and potentially inform the development of clinical interventions for SGM youth and their parents, which, according to scholars, are urgently needed (e.g., Bouris et al., 2010; Heatherington & Lavner, 2008; Parker et al., 2018; Ryan et al., 2010; Saewyc, 2011). CAT and the A-PM have recently been developed as a counselling intervention (e.g., Domene et al., 2015). While the purpose of the present study was not to determine the efficacy of an intervention, and the researcher was not acting in a counselling role, it was important to note whether the participants reported any benefits from taking part in the study. Ethical Considerations The present study received approval from the University of British Columbia’s ethics review board prior to its commencement. Participants were provided with informed consent before agreeing to participate (see Appendix C), and they were given ample opportunity to have their questions regarding the study answered. Participants were reminded on several occasions that their involvement in the study was entirely voluntary and that they were free to stop participating at any moment. While there were no known risks related to participating in this study, some participants could potentially experience minor discomfort. Some topics related to the youth’s coming out, for example, might bring up difficult feelings for the youth and/or parent participants. In order to address the possibility of participant discomfort, anxiety, or difficult feelings related to the study, the researcher provided each participant with a list of counselling resources and local SGM organizations. Researcher Relationship to the Research Topic The present study involved the primary researcher interacting extensively with research participants, the research supervisor, and the volunteer research assistant. Since I was involved in 81 data collection, interpretation, and analysis with human subjects, it is important to provide some information regarding my relationship to the topic of study. I employed reflexivity during the study, which involved actively monitoring and reflecting on my influence on the research process and paying attention to issues of trust and power relationships between me and participants. I utilized reflexivity throughout the study by journaling thoughts and feelings related to the research project and collaborating extensively with the co-researcher and doctoral supervisor. Moreover, all interactions with participants were intentional and reflected upon afterward in order to monitor the impact of my actions on participants. Personal relationship. I have deeply considered how my positionality affects my engagement with the research process generally and with participants specifically. To use identity labels in order to position myself is challenging for me, as I have a bias toward dismantling labels and seeing each unique individual for whom they are in a holistic manner. However, I recognize that it is necessary to do so in order to acknowledge potential bias, and to grow in relational understanding. Moreover, as a White cisgender individual, it is from a place of privilege that I am able to have an anti-label bias. So, to position myself with relation to the phenomenon under investigation: I am a White sexual minority cisgender male person. My Whiteness, cisgender-ness and male-ness provide with me privilege and limit my intuitive understanding and awareness regarding the experiences of persons of color, and people who identify as transgender and women. While my experiences as a sexual minority provide me with specialized knowledge and awareness, they also posed a potential source of bias (LaSala, 2003). My position as a middle-aged White, cisgender, sexual minority male may have affected the recruitment process as well as participants’ level of comfort taking part in the study. For example, my presence a cisgender male could be uncomfortable for some research participants, 82 such as transgender individuals, as they may have experienced discrimination in the SGM community. For persons of color, my Whiteness may be threatening due to past experiences with prejudice and discrimination. Since my research revolves around parent-youth relationships, it may be helpful to provide some information about my upbringing and family of origin. I grew up in the 70s and 80s in Abbotsford, BC, a suburban town known for being politically conservative and predominantly White Christian. I grew with Christian parents and was obligated to attend Sunday school and church and pray regularly. I realized I was not religious (or at least not Christian) prior to realizing that I was not heterosexual. By the time I realized I was not heterosexual, I already knew that this aspect of my being would not be acceptable in my school, peer group, or family. From my parents, I had received loud and clear the silent message that sexuality was not something to be talked about. From a young age, even though I “passed” as a fairly normative straight boy, I never felt internally that I fit with “the boys.” I played hockey, soccer, and softball; however, I didn’t feel like I was quite good enough, and I had the sense that I was just doing these things because my older (and from my perspective, straighter, smarter, and more athletic) brother was doing them. I needed to be like him, do gender and sexuality like him, be extroverted like him. These experiences have led me to my current values around relationship norms. Specifically, I believe that relationships should offer an environment of openness – a place where individuals can (especially those with less power in the relationship) bring aspects of themselves into the relational space and feel heard, understood, and safe to negotiate further meaning and understanding around developing aspects of themselves. This bias caused me to intentionally foster a safe relational environment with research participants, my co-researcher, 83 and my supervisor. It also led to my interest in the research topic, as I wanted to understand how supportive parents enact their “supportive-ness”. I have always been interested in learning about people who are different from me. My cross-cultural experiences (e.g., living in Japan, Hong Kong, Australia, and Brazil for over a decade) have helped me to “zoom out” a bit and see how my own familial and cultural background affected (and continues to affect) my worldview and unique biases. I realize that my cross-cultural understandings are just scratching the surface which motivates me to learn more about diversity. Professional relationship. As a teacher for twelve years, and as a clinical counsellor for ten years, I have worked extensively with a wide array of youth and their parents. At one secondary school, I facilitated a Gender and Sexualities Alliance (GSA) club, and thus had the opportunity to work directly with SGM youth and their allies. Part of my responsibility during that time was to act as the school’s “safe contact” – someone whom students could speak to in confidence about issues related to sexual orientation and gender identity. As a school counsellor and as a counsellor in private practice, I have had the opportunity to work with many SGM youth who have been struggling with issues related to coming out to their parents in both individual and group counselling. In addition, I have provided consultation to parents who are struggling with their own adaptation process following their child’s disclosure of a minority sexual orientation and/or gender identity. I have witnessed firsthand some of the joys and challenges that youth and parents experience as they accommodate an SGM identity within the family, and I see a need for an examination of the relational processes involved in this journey. 84 Chapter 4: Findings SOGI (sexual orientation and/or gender identity) construction involves the process of articulating and forming one’s sexual orientation and/or gender identity. The present study explored youth SOGI construction within the context of parent-youth relationships by asking the following research questions: (1) What joint actions and projects do SGM youth and their parents engage in that are relevant to the youth’s “coming out” process and/or SOGI construction? and (2) How are these joint actions and projects constructed, organized, and implemented over time? All youth and their parents engaged in SOGI-specific actions, that is, actions that addressed “coming out” or the youth’s SOGI construction. For four dyads, the parent-youth actions and projects were more explicitly related to the youth’s SOGI construction. For example, these dyads engaged in SOGI-specific actions such as discussing what to say when coming out to others about the youth’s SOGI and navigating the medical system to help the youth affirm their gender identity. In the other two dyads, the SOGI-specific actions were more subtle, for example, talking about the youth’s partner, about the parent’s wish to go to the next Pride celebration, or about a TV show with a gay character. These actions coalesced into a joint project that appeared to revolve more around relationship strengthening and maintenance than around SOGI construction per se. This chapter has three main sections: individual-case findings, cross-case findings, and key assertions. My goal is to present individual cases in sufficient detail to retain their richness and complexity and address the research questions. Table 4.1 outlines the basic structure for the individual case presentations. 85 Table 4.1 Structure for Individual-Case Findings Dyad Number Background and Context SOGI-Specific Action Joint Project Concluding Comments Assertion First, I provide background information for each dyad, such as relevant demographic and contextual information (note that all participant names mentioned in the present paper are pseudonyms). I then present the SOGI-specific action; that is, the individual and joint action most relevant to the youth’s coming out or SOGI construction within the parent-youth relationship context. After that, I present the joint project, a participant-reviewed summary of the joint goal-directed action, which was identified after careful coding and analysis of individual and joint action from the first meeting with participants. Based on participant reports during the telephone monitoring period, I discuss the progression of the joint project over time. I then present concluding comments where I discuss central themes emerging from each case. Finally, I provide an assertion for each case, which represents a distillation of my learning about the case and acknowledges that other interpretations are possible. Following the individual-case findings, I present the findings from the cross-case analysis, which provides an opportunity to discuss salient and pertinent actions and themes that emerged across cases. The chapter concludes with my key assertions. 86 Individual-Case Findings Dyad 1: Andrew (Youth) and Alice (Parent) Background and Context. Andrew is 22 years old and identifies as cisgender, gay, and biracial. He recently graduated from university, is working full-time, and lives with his mother, Alice. Andrew has been in a relationship with his partner, Jake, for approximately one year. Andrew reported in the screening interview that he realized he may not be heterosexual at age 18. When he was 19 years old, he came out to friends and immediate family, including Alice. Andrew stated that, even though he and his mom had always been very close, he had kept his sexual orientation hidden from her for approximately one and a half years, as he was worried about being perceived as “different.” Alice has three children including Andrew. She identifies as cisgender, straight, and Asian. Alice mentioned in the telephone screening that, when her son first came out to her, she didn’t make a big deal of it and responded to him by saying: “Just don’t think that’s gonna get you out of chores!” and “I love you just the same.” In the video recall interview, Alice elaborated on her response and said, “Well, when he told me [he is gay], I told him, you know regardless you are still my child, like I love you, I will always love you just like I love your siblings, like that will never change, right.” Alice drew on her own experience with racial discrimination to have empathy and understanding for what Andrew may have experienced concerning sexual orientation. In the warm-up interview, Alice and Andrew reported that sexual orientation is rarely an explicit topic of conversation unless it is brought up by a third party: Interviewer A: So, have you two been having any recent conversations around Andrew’s sexual orientation or coming out to others? 87 Andrew: Maybe initially like coming out to grandparents. Alice: Yeah, to family. Andrew: And yeah, the rest of the family but beyond that, not really. I think it sometimes pops up in conversation if I meet someone for the first time, and I met my mom’s friends in (city) this past summer and she made a comment about how she wanted to set me up with her niece (both laughing). And so, my mom had that kind of conversation with her. Alice: Yeah Andrew: Umm I guess that’s the most recent example. Interviewer A: Ok. So, you had a conversation with her? Alice: Yeah. Andrew: Prior to meeting her. Alice: I said that’s sweet, but he is gay (both laughing). Interviewer A: So sometimes your job is to inform other people too? Alice: Yeah, I don’t think it is something I should have to tell people. You know, it’s, it’s not like they say Oh, so my daughter is straight. Interviewer A: Right. Alice: (Laughing) Why would I go around and say hey my son is gay. I think it’s really nobody’s business and you know, if they are close to us then they will find out eventually and I don’t see it as a point I have to tell people. SOGI-Specific Action. Alice and Andrew appeared to have a joint goal of integrating Andrew’s boyfriend (Jake) into their family and connecting with Jake’s family. They did this by taking part in family events and by discussing Jake and his family members. Andrew took steps toward this goal by sharing information about Jake’s family with Alice and by asking her 88 questions to see what she thought about spending time with Jake's family. During the telephone monitoring period, Andrew seemed to be facilitating a connection between Alice and Jake’s family. He regularly shared information with Alice about Jake and his family, and he invited her to family gatherings. Andrew stated: Jake [had an event] this week. So, we (Andrew and Alice) went to Jake’s house after, and he had a bunch of family over. So, it was fun for my mom to meet my boyfriend’s extended family. Jake’s mom and my mom had a good conversation and wanted to make plans to do more. In concert, Alice seemed to have an individual goal of showing support for Andrew’s relationship with Jake. In the video recall interview, she talked about the importance of the visit they recently had with Jake’s family, when she invited them over to her place after Andrew’s graduation ceremony. She said she was happy the visit went well, noting that it is a way of showing support for their relationship. Alice continued to provide support for Andrew’s relationship with Jake throughout the telephone monitoring period. For example, as Alice states in the following excerpt from telephone monitoring, she and Andrew attended a party with Jake’s family. Alice said, “. . . so I met the whole family. It was good. The grandma was telling me she loved Andrew, and that he’s sweet. He’s very tight with Jake’s family. I’m getting more connected with them.” When asked what it means to her to be connecting with her son’s partner’s family, Alice said “It’s a very proud feeling to be his mom because they (Jake and his family) compliment him so much. It’s so nice to hear that. They like him and he’s such a nice young man. Other than that, it’s just a normal mother-son relationship.” 89 The present study was advertised as an exploration of parents and youth regarding the SOGI coming out process, and the video-recorded conversation presented an opportunity to address the past and potentially emotion-laden topics. However, this dyad kept the conversation light and comfortable. For example, when Alice talked in the warm-up interview about Andrew’s coming out, she described it in a light and humorous way; and gave no indication of an adjustment process of her own. It appeared that Alice was more comfortable talking about others’ experiences with coming out, such as her friend from high school, than about Andrew’s coming out. Whether Alice experienced any challenges in acceptance or understanding related to Andrew’s sexual orientation disclosure is not known. Joint Project. Data analysis indicated that the joint project for Alice and Andrew was to maintain a strong and supportive connection with one another, which Alice and Andrew confirmed at the second meeting. The joint project remained stable throughout their involvement in the study; however, final analysis indicated that Andrew and Alice were not only working to maintain their relationship, but also to strengthen it. In the video-recorded conversation, their primary joint goal was to support one another and connect with one another. They worked toward this goal by consistently acknowledging and responding to one another. They also did this by making regular eye contact, smiling at one another, laughing together, and talking about light and humorous topics. In addition, they seemed to be highly attuned to one another, and aware of each other’s feelings in the conversation. Having a video-recorded conversation presented a situation outside of their comfort zone and they helped each other to deal with the awkward nature of the conversation through their mutual support. 90 Throughout the data collection period, Andrew and Alice reported regular and consistent engagement with one another (e.g., through in-person chats, instant messaging, and various joint activities, such as watching TV, walking and hiking). Each was mindful of the importance of the relationship and proactively sought to contribute to its growth. Additionally, they seemed to depend on one another if they needed help with something, such as a ride to work or the airport. Andrew stated that it was important to him to “make time” for him and Alice to “. . . catch up and stay informed in what is going on in each other’s lives.” Acknowledging their mutual support, Andrew noted that he and Alice are “. . . able to lean on each other and ask each other questions.” Alice stated that she intentionally reserves one-on-one time for each child, including Andrew, and she expressed her gratitude and admiration for Andrew. Alice reported in the video recall interview that she and Andrew connect on a daily basis, saying: “If I don’t see him, either one of us is texting to say hey, where are you, what are you doing today? What are you doing, how’s your day?” Throughout the telephone monitoring period, Alice continued to seek opportunities to connect with Andrew and show interest in his life. For example, they went on walks together and maintained regular communication by chatting in person and through instant messaging. When asked what it means to her to spend time with Andrew, she said: We are very close, so when I spend time with him alone, it gives us – me and him – time, and we talk about his life and what’s happening, and what’s happening in my life, it means a lot, I love that. . . We’re tight. . . We don’t have any issues, he’s just who he is and I’m who I am. Concluding Comments. Andrew and Alice’s relationship exemplifies a mutual support system: They are very supportive of one another, and they respect each other’s boundaries. Andrew and Alice’s relationship seems more akin to an adult-adult relationship than adult-child. 91 Andrew’s support for Alice was evident through his deliberate attempt to “make time” for Alice and be there when she needs him. He also showed his support through his acceptance and understanding regarding Alice’s exploration of new romantic relationships. Alice’s support of Andrew extended to meeting Andrew’s boyfriend’s family, actions that provided tacit support for Andrew’s sexual orientation. Talking about Jake seemed to be one way that they could work together to incorporate and affirm Andrew’s identity. It did not appear that there were other SOGI-related topics being discussed in this dyad, and Alice and Andrew seemed to have a strategy of limiting disclosures related to anxiety-provoking topics. Assertion. Andrew’s SOGI project was embedded in Andrew and Alice’s relationship project. In the context of their relationship, Andrew has moved from feeling “different” prior to coming out, to a place where he feels affirmed regarding his SOGI-status. Andrew’s open sharing about his relationship with his boyfriend, and Alice’s affirmation of this relationship, are implicitly sending a message of acceptance for Andrew’s SOGI-status. What they were discussing was not explicitly related to SOGI; however, they were maintaining and strengthening a relational context within which Andrew could feel comfortable sharing some aspects of his SOGI-status, such as his relationship with his boyfriend. Additionally, there was an underlying attitude from the parent in this dyad that one’s sexual orientation is a non-issue and not something that needs to be shared with others. Dyad 2: Sydney (Youth) and Sue (Parent) Background and Context. Sydney is 22 years old and lives with her partner, Sam. Sydney is attending college and working towards a professional degree. With regards to gender identity, Sydney identifies as gender non-conforming and uses feminine (i.e., she/her) pronouns for herself. Regarding sexual orientation, she identifies as a lesbian. Sydney stated that she first 92 realized she might not be heterosexual at the age of 16 and began to come out to friends that same year. She reported that she came out to her mom when she was 18 years old. She stated that coming out to her mom and dad was a positive experience and said, “It wasn’t really me; it was them being more proactive and me having no qualms about it.” Sue lives with her husband (Sydney’s father) and daughter (Sydney’s sibling). She identifies as straight and cisgender and works part-time. Sue grew up in a rural part of Canada and reported that she is Christian. She said that she and her husband had wondered if Sydney might be gay before she came out to them. At that time, Sue and her husband asked a gay friend for advice about how to address the topic of sexual orientation with Sydney. The friend advised them to wait for Sydney to come out to them, which they did. In the warm-up interview, Sydney and Sue talked about the time Sydney first came out to Sue and her husband: Interviewer A: How long ago did Sydney come out and what was the family’s response? Sydney: Four years ago (pause), four and a half (wondering)? Sue: It was after high school Sydney: Yeah Sue: Although, (Sydney’s father) and I suspected. Sydney: OK. My whole goal was to just act as gay as possible, so I didn’t actually have to tell you guys (laughing). Sue: Yeah, she wore a suit with a bow tie to her grad (Sue laughing) so did (Sydney’s father) you guys were matching. Sydney: Oh yeah. Sue: Yeah, yeah, no, the family was all good. 93 Sydney: Yeah Interviewer A: The immediate family and extended family, did you tell them right away or did you wait a little? Sydney: I haven’t really told anyone. Sue: No (laughing) I was the one that told everybody. Sydney: I wanted you to tell them. I was like uh, I don’t care who you tell. Sue: My in-laws were totally fine. I was a bit hesitant, um, approaching it with my parents because they are quite religious. I didn’t know what they would think. Um, they were (pause) fine. SOGI-Specific Action. Sydney and Sue’s relationship provided a context for SOGI-specific action processes. For example, in their video-recorded conversation, Sue and Sydney openly discussed the use of gender-neutral pronouns. This was an important topic for them as Sydney’s partner (Sam) identifies as non-binary and uses they/them pronouns: Sue: OK, do you wanna explain they and them and anything to me? Sydney: Ok, what are you confused about? Sue: I don’t know I’m kind of getting used to it now so, but I mean, it’s not an automatic thing for me. Sydney: Like it happens automatically sometimes but not in the same context like if someone knocks at the door and you don’t know who it is and you’re like laying on the couch (gestures to show head inclining as if to rest) you’re like, oh, I wonder what they want? (Sue: Mm-hm) Right, you’re not like I wonder what he or she wants. Sue: Oh, Yeah, yeah that’s true 94 Sydney: You don’t say he or she, he slash she, like, in books when it does that, that’s just dumb. (Sue: Yeah, nodding) It’s easy peasy pumpkin squeezy (both giggling and smiling). Yeah, but it takes some getting used to. Um, (partner)’s parents, I don’t think have gotten used to it. Sue: No, they have a hard time even calling her (name). Sydney: Yeah, (looks up in an inquisitive way) them. Sue: I mean, Ah (throws her head back). Sydney: (Pats Sue on knee and giggles) I know I know. . . it’s not like bad if you forget. It’s only bad if you’re purposefully like sheeee . . . that’s just like invalidating of someone’s whole identity you know. Sue: If they do it on purpose or whatever (Sydney: Yeah). I always realize after I say it. I mean because it’s just second nature to say he or she or whatever and as soon as I realize oh that’s not right. Sydney: I know, yeah. Sue: Then I correct myself (Sydney smiling). When you and (younger sister) were growing up, you know I always called you, ‘Come on ladies, let’s go’ or whatever. When we were going somewhere and I’m so used to saying that too and then I catch myself saying OK ladies, let’s go (Sydney: Yeah). And oh, no that’s not what I mean. Sydney: I know. . . But yeah, it’s just a forgetful thing. As long as it’s not a malicious thing. Sue: No no, yeah. Sydney: Like obviously you’re not gonna learn in like a week, obviously (grinning). 95 Sue reported that, while she is gradually getting accustomed to using they/them pronouns when referring to Sam, it is still very challenging for her. In the video-recall interview, she said, “I catch myself. . . it’s so hard to get used to, it’s not an automatic thing for me.” In the conversation, Sue inadvertently referred to Sam as “she” instead of “they” and quickly corrected herself. Reflecting on this in the video-recall interview, Sue expressed frustration and said, “I was thinking to myself I’m so stupid, I can’t remember. . . it is so hard for me to get the pronoun thing right.” These internal processes exemplify the inner struggle Sue was having related to using gender-neutral pronouns. The manifest behavior of using the incorrect pronoun might be interpreted as an indication of lack of support; however, Sue’s internal processes provide evidence of her earnest attempt at learning. During the telephone monitoring period, Sue continued her efforts to use the correct pronouns when referring to Sam. In addition to gender-neutral pronouns, Sydney talked about a transgender youth with whom she had worked and about drag shows. Sue asked follow-up questions about these SOGI-specific topics, thereby showing interest and engagement. Sydney also brought up the topic of Pride: She invited Sue to attend the next Pride event and shared a humorous story with Sue from a previous Pride celebration. Sydney: Um, well you should come to Pride next year; you should do Pride parade. Sue: M-hm (nodding). Yeah, I’ve never been to that before. Did you go last year? Sydney: Uh not, well this past year I was at (place). Sue: Oh, that’s right. Sydney: But the year before I did. But (friend from school), that’s one of the girls at the program in my school, she’s very queer. (Sue: M-hm). Um, and she is friends with our teacher from (school name). 96 Sue: OK. Sydney: Um who is married and has two kids and is like 50, but, (friend from school) I think texted her, Oh are you gonna go to Pride or whatever, and (friend from school) was planning to be just like pretty much topless with tape over her nipples (both laughing and smiling) and then uh and then (teacher) showed up but with her kids (Sue: Oooohh) who are like 8 and 10 years old. (Friend from school) like, puts her shirt back on but (teacher) was like No, it’s fine. I said, you know kids, you might see some nipples, you might see some butts, you might see some boobs, like, be prepared (both laughing, smiling). So, it was pretty funny just her telling me about it. Sue: Did she go on a float or? Sydney: No. Just chillin’. Sue: Yeah. Sydney: Chillin’ with the boobs out. Sue: Oh, I thought she was in the parade. Sydney: No. Sue: OK. Sydney: Just watching. One of Sydney’s goals in the conversation was to educate Sue about the SGM community and facilitate Sue’s connectedness to the community in a way that promotes mutual understanding and acceptance. Several times during the conversation, Sydney was informing Sue about the use of gender-neutral pronouns. When reflecting on this in the video-recall interview, Sydney said, “I’m trying to educate her, and I always really want to feel like I’m putting it in terms that she can understand, so she doesn’t get that sort of defensive feeling.” Sydney talked 97 about how she wanted to educate her mom about SOGI issues in a way that was sensitive to her feelings and mindful of her mom’s cultural background and life experiences. Sydney reported that she is thankful she can share “cultural information” with her mom due to her mom’s “open-mindedness and interest.” She also said that she was feeling satisfied that her mom was asking proactive questions and reassured that her mom had gotten something out of the conversation. During the telephone monitoring period, Sydney continued to have the goal of educating her mom about SOGI-specific aspects of her life and gently promoting understanding of her identity and community. Sydney mentioned that while her mom continued to struggle with using Sam’s pronouns, she was making progress. In the final telephone call, she said, “. . . regards to pronouns stuff, my mom corrected herself on using Sam’s pronouns without me having to tell her so that was nice and surprising.” The joint action of integrating Sam into their family was affirming of Sydney’s SOGI-status and was thus pertinent to her SOGI construction process. The topic of Sydney’s partner came up several times in the video-recorded conversation, (e.g., while discussing gender-neutral pronouns and a drag show) and during the telephone monitoring period. Sydney regularly brought Sam with her when she went to her visit her parents’ house and kept her mom abreast of news related to Sam. Joint Project. Sydney and Sue’s joint project was identified as: engaging in a trusting and mutually supportive relationship where they appear to be in tune with one another. Sydney and Sue confirmed this project at the second interview, and the project continued throughout the length of the study. In the video-recorded conversation, Sue and Sydney were discussing topics related to Sydney’s life (e.g., her interests, relationships, and activities – some of which were SOGI-specific) in order to achieve a shared understanding of Sydney’s identity and community. 98 Sydney was sharing aspects of her life which are integral to her identity, and Sue was showing interest and attentiveness, and taking the time to learn. Sydney and Sue appeared to be learning about one another and thereby building a deeper mutual understanding. While Sydney took the lead in educating or providing information, Sue also shared personal experiences to help Sydney understand where she was coming from. During the telephone monitoring period, Sydney and Sue continued to engage regularly with one another through casual conversations and shared activities. Sue described their time as “just kind of hanging out and connecting.” Sydney described how she enjoys spending time with her mom and feels comfortable with her. She said, “We usually don’t talk in-depth about anything in particular, we just sort of bring up whatever topic, and just go with it.” Concluding Comments. A theme of cautious intentionality appeared to permeate Sue and Sydney’s interactions. For example, while Sydney reported feeling very comfortable and secure in her relationship with Sue; she was cautious when approaching subjects, such as Pride and drag shows, that could potentially be uncomfortable for Sue. Additionally, Sydney was intentional and thoughtful in how she showed support to her mom. Sydney said she wanted to educate her mom in a careful way, to “ease her in,” with a goal of promoting understanding between two populations. Notably, Sydney had the perspective to consider how the micro context of her relationship with Sue might affect the relationship between these two populations (i.e., SGM people and non-SGM people) on a macro level. Sue, in turn, appeared to be cautious with Sydney and held back from disclosing much about her personal experience in the conversation with Sydney and the follow-up interviews with the researcher. Related to the theme of caution is a theme of hesitancy around discussing Sydney’s SOGI-status. After coming out to her friends, Sydney waited approximately two years before coming 99 out to Sue. Thus, there had been a period where Sydney had not felt comfortable disclosing her sexual orientation to Sue, even though Sue appears to be highly accepting and supportive of Sydney’s sexual orientation. Furthermore, it appears that Sue is still adjusting in some ways to Sydney’s SOGI-status, and Sydney is still adjusting to the way it changes their relationship (e.g., how she is cautious with certain SOGI-specific topics). While Sydney identified in the screening interview as gender non-conforming, this aspect of her identity was not mentioned by Sue or Sydney in any of the interviews. Assertion. Sydney and Sue are engaging in a very positive and mutually supportive relationship. For this dyad, “coming out” has not been a single event – it has been a process, one with which they are still engaged – more implicitly than explicitly. They are still negotiating SOGI-related meaning in a calm, cautious, and relational way. Their relationship project is paramount and serves as the ground from which Sydney’s identity is affirmed and nurtured. Dyad 3: Nick (Youth) and Melissa (Parent) Background and Context. Nick is 17 years old and in his final year of secondary school. Nick’s parents separated when he was a young child. He lives with his mom, Melissa, about half of the time, and with his father the other half. Nick described his ethnic identity as being mixed race. Regarding his SOGI-status, Nick identifies as transgender and pansexual and reported that he is in a long-term relationship with his boyfriend. Nick stated that he was about 11 years old when he first thought he may not be heterosexual. Shortly thereafter, he reportedly began to think more about his gender identity. He reported that he came out to friends and family members when he was 14 years old – first regarding sexual orientation and soon after regarding gender identity. In the warm-up interview, Nick recounted experiencing biphobia, homophobia 100 and transphobia at school after he came out, and as a result, he decided to move to a different school. Melissa works full-time and Nick is her only child. She identifies as heterosexual and cisgender. Melissa and Nick’s father divorced when Nick was a young child and they remain in regular contact with one another. Melissa reported in the warm-up interview that it was very difficult for her when Nick’s father was initially unsupportive of Nick’s sexual orientation and gender identity – a memory that brought tears to her eyes. However, she expressed gratitude that Nick’s father eventually became affirming of Nick’s identity. She mentioned in the warm-up interview that she was interested in participating in this research study because her journey with her son has been wonderful and “it would be nice if information went out to other parents to help youth transition and be who they are without feeling judged.” She said, “Nick is doing his best to adapt and I think it is our job not just as parents, but society, to adapt with them, not to pass judgement, try to fix it, or blame somebody.” In the warm-up interview she also said the following: I went through some grieving in all honesty but that’s human. I had a daughter for thirteen years that I loved and liked to dress up and had envisioned a different life for her, but I embraced my son equally, you know. . . the journey for me has been extraordinary. I have learned so much. I’ve learned a lot about Nick and his resilience and his strengths and um, who he is as an individual. SOGI-Specific Action. In the video-recorded conversation, Nick and Melissa slipped into discussing various SOGI-related topics with apparent ease. For example, Nick shared his thoughts about gender and sexuality and Melissa listened carefully to him, expressing encouragement and affirmation. Melissa’s consistent affirmation seemed to facilitate Nick’s 101 sharing. Nick’s sharing provided Melissa with an opportunity to better understand his experience, and at the same time, it afforded Nick a chance to make sense of his identity. In the following excerpt, Melissa asked Nick about one of his high school classes, and Nick shared his thoughts regarding gender and sexuality: Melissa: So so, what was your favourite topic so far? Nick: Um, I really enjoy when I can talk about gender and sexuality. Melissa: Yeah. Nick: Because like. . . Melissa: No, I think it’s great. Nick: My gender and sexuality aren’t the only parts of my identity. Melissa: No. Nick: They’re one of the many parts of my identity, but they’re something I’m very passionate about (Melissa: Yeah). I love sharing that information with people. I wanna encourage other people to step out of their comfort zone and think about themselves. Like really think about themselves. Not what our society thinks they should be or what their parents think they should be. I think people should like (slight pause, sighs), like being straight and cis is fine obviously, but you know, taking those minutes to think about your relationship with your identity, with those parts of your identity and thinking about like, Is this really me? Am I being my authentic self? And like giving yourself that time to um consider instead of pushing it aside and being like No, this is what I am. Melissa: Oh that’s great, because, and you’re right, you know, a lot of people don’t think that about themselves and. . . Nick: (nodding) It adds depth to your character. 102 Melissa: It does, it really does, you know and I, that’s one of the reasons I’m so proud of you (smiling at each other) is because you offer that to other people (Nick nodding). You offer that insight and you know, you’re a success in your own right, and uh, I like that you are willing to step up and um platform that to anybody, to everybody, yeah, it’s very, uh it’s just mind-boggling for me (Nick smiling) because I um I often think about you in that role, and I think, wow, that’s my son, you know. Nick and Melissa’s relationship provided a place where sensitive aspects of Nick’s identity could be discussed openly and directly. For example, Nick and Melissa talked about the discomfort Nick experiences when binding, and together they discussed ways he might decrease the amount of time he spends binding. Nick shared that he is getting more comfortable being around people when he’s not binding if he has baggier clothes, noting that it is more challenging to wear baggy clothing in warmer weather. Melissa offered to go clothes shopping with Nick and encouraged him to bind as little as possible. Nick reported that he enjoys taking part in the GSA (Gender Sexuality Alliance; also known as Gay-Straight Alliance) club at his school, and he brought up the topic of a drag show that his GSA club is putting on. Nick: Did I tell you that our GSA, for pink shirt day, we’re having a drag show? Melissa: No. Oh, fun! Nick: And I’m gonna perform in it, and some other students are gonna perform in it. Melissa: Yeah, cool. . . So, is it open to everybody or just to trans or just to the LGBTQ? Nick: Um, we wanted to keep the focus on LGBTQ students, um, but we have a teacher who is performing, who’s like, an ally. Melissa: Right (nodding). 103 Nick: Our goal is to go past like the queer 101; go more in-depth about the history and talk about slurs and what the implications are of using slurs. Like the pyramid that forms, how at the base it’s like making jokes about people being trans and gay, using slurs, and at the top, it’s like actual violence against trans and gay people and how you need the base to get to the top (Melissa nodding), and so by being passive, like even if you are not using slurs, but if you’re around people and you’re like, Well I’m not gonna correct them, I’m not gonna say anything. Melissa: Yeah, yeah. Nick: By saying nothing, you’re basically. . . Melissa: Part of it. Nick: Part of it. Another SOGI-specific action toward their joint SOGI project involved discussing Nick’s relationships, with Melissa asking questions and Nick sharing his experience and perception of his relationships. These action processes are pertinent to Nick’s SOGI construction as they provide affirmation of his SOGI-status and a space where he is able to clarify his sense of identity in relation to others. In the video-recorded conversation, Melissa asked Nick if he has any friends who do not identify as LGBTQ. It seemed as though Melissa had a strategy of gently challenging Nick to consider how he may be limiting his relationship choices, and consequently limiting possibilities for self-development. Melissa: So, I am wondering something though. Is um, are all, are all LGBTQ people only, do they only befriend LGBTQ (Nick shaking his head) or do they… Nick: No. Melissa: Like do you have friends that aren’t? 104 Nick: Yeah, I have friends that aren’t. I, it’s a different relationship though, because there’s a different understanding. Melissa: But why does it have to be a different relationship? What comes to my mind, you know, it’s like segregation for me. It’s like well we have the LGBTQ here and we have you know your conventional students here (gesturing) and if we want it to be the norm (Nick nodding) then it has to be, it has to come together (Nick: Yeah) as the norm, so, you know, when you’re with your friends, you don’t just talk about LGBTQ stuff. Nick: (nodding) I know. Melissa: You know, you talk about sports, or you talk about music and theatre. Nick: Video games and stuff yeah. But there is a different connection because we’ve been through similar struggles. Melissa: Well, I understand but, let’s just say you met me, I’m your age, and you met me for the first time, and I struck up a conversation with you or vice versa and I start talking about the weather, and then, Oh you have a dog, oh nice dog, what kind, and then we start talking. Do you feel like you need to tell me that you’re trans? Nick: (shaking head) No. Melissa: And do you think I should know that about you? Nick: No. A lot of people feel like they do, like it’s their right to know if you’re a trans person. In response to Melissa’s question about whether or not he had non-LGBTQ friends, Nick expressed his perception that his relationships with LGBTQ friends are different from his relationships with non-LGBTQ people. He expressed his opinion to his mom that gender and sexuality serve as a base that leads to more personal conversations with people. In the video 105 recall, he mentioned that he was taken aback by his mom’s question; however, he still wanted to give her space to express herself and ask these types of questions, even if they “seem obvious” to him. Since Nick was born, it appears that Melissa has had the overarching goal of being a good parent. In the warm-up, Melissa shared that she had wanted to educate herself about parenting and consequently she read a lot of books as Nick was growing up. In the warm-up, she provided some of her internal processes driving this goal. She said, “I didn’t come from a conventional family, so I had to do a lot of research for myself to raise Nick in the best way as I could.” Throughout the research study, Melissa enacted her goal of being a good parent by applying what she learned to her relationship with Nick. From reading books to attending workshops, it was evident that Melissa wanted to learn and apply her knowledge in a way that helped Nick feel more supported and comfortable with himself. For example, during the telephone monitoring period, Melissa attended a SOGI workshop and subsequently took down old photos of Nick after learning that this is beneficial for many trans youth. Joint Project. In the video-recorded conversation, Nick and Melissa exchanged opinions on aspects of Nick’s life that are relevant to his identity, such as his gender identity, sexual orientation, and relationships. Data analysis revealed the following joint project for Nick and Melissa: Together, they are engaging with one another in order to build a strong connection that facilitates and supports Nick’s identity through discussion of Nick’s gender identity/sexual orientation, well-being, interests, and relationships with friends and family. This dyad’s overarching relationship project was evident from the beginning of data collection. The relationship presented a vehicle for SOGI-specific action processes and meaning-making. 106 Nick and Melissa’s love and respect for one another were apparent throughout the data collection period. Melissa expressed pride and validation for Nick in the video-recorded conversation by consistently facing him, smiling at him, and showing interest in what he was talking about. She also did this by explicitly stating several times in the warm-up interview and the conversation that she is proud of who Nick is as a person. In the warm-up, she said the following: I respect and admire him (Nick) for who he is and his determination. He has given up a lot, a lot of friends who don’t understand. That hurts me to think that his friends don’t get it even in this day and age, but that is on them. Nick is, has, risen above that and that says a lot about his integrity. Yeah, it takes a lot to do that at that time in your life. Everybody at that age, they are trying to figure it out – who they are and where they fit in the world. And then you come out, you know, and you figured that out, you wanted to share it. That isn’t the norm, so yeah, you took a huge step and a risk, and you came out on top. So that’s pretty cool. Reflecting on the importance of his mom’s support in the video recall, Nick said, “My mom is always reminding me that she loves me and supports me and cares about me. Every time she says it it’s still like validating, yeah.” In the telephone monitoring period, Nick also expressed feelings of gratitude for Melissa, and said, “My mom and I have come a long way in terms of our relationship. I feel more comfortable talking to my mom now and I’ve been thinking more that I’m really lucky, really grateful.” In the final call with Nick, he expressed positive feelings about his relationship with Melissa and recognized how her support has helped him to move forward with his life and be his authentic self. Nick reported that he was feeling happy to 107 receive his new documents, such as his birth certificate with his name on it, and said that his mom was “definitely the driving force in getting it done.” During the telephone monitoring period, it appeared that there was a disengagement project occurring. Nick’s actions related to this project involved asking his mom to stop contacting him so frequently and asserting that he is capable of making his own decisions. Melissa, in turn, decided to “back off” and give Nick more space – for him and for herself. Space seemed to offer them a chance to reflect on the meaning and importance of their relationship and allowed a re-engagement to occur – one that better reflected their individual needs. They seemed to arrive at a place where they were more accepting of one another and appreciative of their respective contributions to the relationship (despite feeling at times frustrated with one another). Melissa seemed to be reminding herself of the importance of stepping back; recognizing that, despite Nick’s growing independence, she still has an important role to play in his life. In the final telephone call, she reported that, while Nick keeps a lot to himself, he is still interested in spending time with her. Reflecting on Nick’s increasing independence, Melissa expressed a desire to show Nick she trusted him by letting him do his own thing, and being available for support when he needed it, saying, “At some point, every parent needs to take a step back and let their child show you what kind of a job you’ve done raising them.” Concluding Comments. It appears that Melissa is looking more to the past to make sense of her progress as a parent and Nick’s development as her child. Melissa had a daughter; she has memories of her daughter, and part of her process has been to mourn the loss of her daughter and establish a new and dynamic relationship with her son. Nick, in contrast, is looking more to the future. He has been through struggles related to his identity and has arrived at a place where he is comfortable with whom he is, and is excited about travelling the world, attending university, and 108 eventually living with his boyfriend. For Melissa, Nick’s coming out began a substantial “journey” and process of change. At present, Melissa is in a process of figuring out how to engage with Nick (e.g., give him more space, and trust that he can make his own decisions) as he becomes an adult. She is realizing that she can’t always be there to “rescue” Nick and that some lessons he will have to learn on his own. She is aware that she wants to protect Nick even more because he is transgender. Nick, on the other hand, is discovering how he can stay connected with his mom while becoming a more independent person. He is discovering what it means for him to be a person who identifies as trans and pansexual, and through his conversations with his mom as well as his distancing from her, asserting his unique identity and realizing that, despite occasional annoyances and misunderstandings, he is extremely grateful for Melissa’s love and support. It seems that Nick and Melissa are learning from each other. For example, Melissa is guiding Nick, reminding him to be more open to people who are not members of the SGM community. Nick is teaching Melissa about his needs, identity, relationships, and unique way of viewing the world. Talking about the GSA club, for example, was a means of sharing relevant cultural information as well as asserting the importance of speaking out about homophobia and transphobia. It was also an opportunity for Nick to assert his sense of resilience and agency vis-à-vis his SOGI-status in a cis- and heteronormative societal context. Assertion. Nick and Melissa’s relationship provides a place where Nick can explore his ideas and passions, some of which are related to his gender and sexuality. It is a space where he can say, This is who I am, and this is what gender and sexuality mean to me. The relationship also offers him an opportunity to be challenged; to experiment with whom he is, and to accept or resist his parent’s views on identity and relationships. 109 Dyad 4: Sean (Youth) and Angie (Parent) Background and Context. Sean is 16 years old and he lives with his mother Angie in a small Canadian city. Sean’s father lives in another city and Sean visits him there regularly. Sean identifies as biracial and stated with regards to SOGI-status, that he is a bisexual trans male. He first came out as bisexual when he was 12 years old. When he was 14 years old, he came out to himself as trans, and then at 15 (six months before the first meeting), he came out to Angie as trans. Sean wanted to participate in the present study “to get more good information about the LGBTQ community because it’s not all known.” Sean shared how he waited until he was “sure” about his gender identity before coming out to Angie. He shared with Angie in the warm-up interview how, even though he perceived her as neither homophobic nor transphobic, he was still afraid that she might reject him: I didn’t tell you as soon as I thought that it was a possibility. I told you when I was sure because I didn’t want to have to like flip flop back and forth. And even though I know that you are not nuttily like homophobic or transphobic, I was still afraid of coming out because I had heard so many stories of people not being accepted and kicked out of their houses. I was like ready to get kicked out for some reason. I know, I know it’s weird because I know you aren’t like that. Angie works part-time and Sean is her only child. She identifies as White, heterosexual, cisgender, and non-religious. Angie maintains regular contact with Sean’s father and collaborates with him around parenting. She said that Sean came out to her as transgender about six months before the first research interview. According to Angie, Sean had been struggling with anxiety and depression for several months and she had been deeply concerned about his well-being. She described how, one day, after his counselling session, Sean told her he thought he was trans. 110 Sean’s coming out provided Angie with the hope that he would be able to overcome the debilitating anxiety and depression she had witnessed him experiencing. Angie reported that she wanted to participate in this study in order to share her story so that others may learn from it. In the following excerpt from the warm-up interview, Angie shares some of her process related to Sean’s coming out: Interviewer A: And then, mom, have you been able to share some of your process with Sean? Angie: Yes, so, honestly, I was more concerned about the depression and anxiety; that was freaking me out. For a couple years, it got worse and worse. That is when I got the counsellor to fix things because I like to fix things. And then, when you did tell me, I mean I knew something about it, I just started reading, I can access anything that’s out there. Pursuing testosterone, um, and just wanting him to be happier because you were so unhappy. . . It was terrible (reaching out to touch Sean on his arm). There was some (pause) suicidal talking, depression, not going out of the house, not getting out of bed. Sean: I lost like nine pounds; I wasn’t eating at all. Angie: It was a really tough time. We started the testosterone with a nurse practitioner in (city). We were lucky we didn’t have to wait for an appointment at the gender clinic. Sean: They were all surprised when I got there, ‘Would you like a prescription for?’ ‘Got it.’ ‘Have you tried this?’ ‘Yes.’ Angie: I just wanted to fix. . . and I read that starting testosterone, people feel more themselves and happier so that’s all I wanted. So that’s my process. All I wanted was for him to get better. 111 The interviewer asked Angie: “How did you learn about what Sean was experiencing on the inside?” which led to a recounting by Angie and Sean of the coming out process. Angie: Well, I knew there was anxiety and depression. And a few times I think I said to you “Do you wanna be a boy?” Sean: And I went no no no no no no (using humor). No, never. Angie: And then we went with gay for a while, then. . . Sean: Yeah. Angie: Then we went with non-binary. Sean: No, it was more of a gender-fluid kind of thing. Angie: But when I found out, it was when (counsellor) and Sean came out of an appointment and (counsellor) referred to you (facing Sean) as He. Oh, OK. Sean: Because before that. . . we were coming out of a grocery store, I said ‘Mom, I’m gathering data about something that I think I need to tell you.’ And you were like, ‘Do you want to be a boy?’ And I went ‘Yeah’ (laughing), so then I went to (counsellor) and talked to her about it. You know a lot of things (pointing at Angie). I’m not very good at hiding things I guess but. Angie: And whenever Sean would have a period the depression and the what do you call it, the. . . Sean: Dysphoria. Angie: Dysphoria would get so bad, just shitty shitty feelings and I just felt it like oozed off of you. Sean: Oozed, that’s a nice word, thanks (smiling; using humor). 112 Angie: You were just like (using body language to indicate a heavy, sunken feeling) the worst of the worst. Sean: And I used to get tight skin a lot when I was a kid, I got the feeling that my skin was too tight (shrugging shoulders). I don’t know if that had anything to do with it, but. Angie: And you said to me once you felt your clothes were on inside out. Sean: Yeah. Angie: All the time. SOGI-Specific Action. In the video-recorded conversation, Sean and Angie created space for a candid exploration of issues related to Sean’s identity as a young bisexual trans man. Angie, for example, brought up a TV program they had recently watched together. In the show, a cisgender gay male character said he would only date men with penises and identifies as a “dick-gay.” Sensing that it might have been painful for Sean, Angie asked Sean how it felt for him to hear this. This led to a discussion about relationships, with Angie actively listening to Sean as he shared some perceived barriers to intimacy. Angie: (Asking about a character on TV who said he was a “dick-gay.”) How did that make you feel? Sean: Oh shitty. Angie: (nodding) Shitty, right. Sean: Because I’ve already had like that feeling that nobody can ever like me. . . because I’m not what most, well, guys or girls want. Angie: Yeah (nodding). You feel like you’ll never meet anybody in [town]? 113 Sean: Yup. Probably not. Unless it’s somebody that I’ve known for a while (Angie: Mhm, nodding). But then it’s kind of like, you meet before I come out, I don’t really like that either; cause then I’d feel I was just their girlfriend and not their boyfriend. Angie: Are you afraid of that? Sean: Oh Yeah. Angie: Boys hooking up with you because they remember the girl. Sean: Yeah, cause they can tell me, Oh yeah, you’re my boyfriend (in deeper voice), and in their head, or to their pals: Yo, my girl, yeah. Angie: It’s cool? Sean: Yeah, I guess so (looking down). Yeah, I’m gonna hold that back. I was gonna be like… Angie: What? Sean: I fucked a trannie (again, in deep, impression voice) Angie: Nooooo (looks concerned; smacking lips, shaking head) Sean: It’s a thing. We get fetishized. Angie: Mhm, OK, that would be really painful. Sean and Angie took turns in the conversation describing their experiences related to coming out. Sean listened carefully and gave Angie space to share her experience of coming out to others. Angie: When you did come out. . . it was the beginning of a journey for me. But a journey of telling people. I was now on this path… Sean: Oh yeah, you don’t come out once, you come out… Angie: Yeah, but you weren’t doing it. 114 Sean: For you, but to your friends, who are like… Angie: Yes. You were doing it to your friends, and then I had to, like, it’s like I had to make a list, ok, a fan-out list here (gesturing with index finger and hands to indicate going through a paper list) . . . Ok with a pen, I’ll start with Dad, and then I’ll go, ‘Dad, who are you gonna cover?’ and then it was like, OK, where do I start? So, I had just phoned my closest friends. And then you have to take care of them, not take care of them, but explain to them, reassure them, explain the whole thing. Sean: This doesn’t mean that he’s in a four-way relationship, this doesn’t mean that he’s fucking everybody on the street, but like that. Angie: And I had read those books first (Sean: Yeah) before I told anybody so I had that arsenal. Sean: You have all the books; you had all the books (gesturing with hand). I’m just reading your book (both giggling). It’s called The Trans Child (in humorous voice tone). Angie: The Trans Teen, I read. I read them both. Angie shared with Sean for the first time some of the anxiety she experiences when coming out to others, and how it’s draining for her to tell just one person. Sean shared his intense fear of being misgendered by others. They described strategies they use when coming out: Angie tries to explain everything in detail to one person at a time and Sean comes out directly and succinctly. Angie: It (coming out to others) is hard every time now. Sean: You could just leave it up to me really, like. Angie: No, I’m telling my friends (Sean nodding) Sean: Yeah, but I mean like instead of stressing yourself out with it, like I basically have it down to a science how I tell people, and, cause I’m kind of like, OK, no no, hey hey, 115 (pointing and snapping fingers) eyes on me, eyes on me, ok cool: I used to be a girl, I am now a boy, it is called transgender, Ok, cool, 5 seconds for questions, go! Angie: Ha ha, OK, is that what I do? Sean: Yeah. But then I’m like, And, no, that doesn’t, Hey hey hey (gesturing as if to get a person’s attention; Angie giggling) that doesn’t mean I just like girls, I am not a lesbian. Angie: (nodding) Right. Sean: Hey hey (snaps fingers, gesturing as if to get a person’s attention)! Back here, here here, I like boys and girls. It’s called bisexual, OK bye, go! You, next! Angie shared how she wants to protect Sean by coming out to others, so he doesn’t have to. She said to Sean: “I see someone, and they don’t know, and I feel like I have to get in front of you and stomp out the fire before you get there.” She told Sean that when she tells one person, she realizes they will tell others, and she does not want him to become a piece of gossip. Angie described how recently she has been trying to send a coming-out email to a relative. Sean was highly attuned and empathic while listening to Angie describe her experience: Angie: But, like I haven’t told (family member) yet. . . so I started writing her back and I go, OK I’m gonna tell her, so I type. Sean: Let me just unload all of this. Angie: I typed it out, I said [Sean’s dead name] now goes by Sean, he is trans, there you go (giggling). So, I just said something like that. . . I feel like I, it’s such a huge, um strain, drain, um energy drain on me to tell one person. Sean: Mhm, because there’s a lot… Angie: And then I have to rest for a fucking week. 116 Sean: Cause it’s not just like if I wasn’t trans, it’s not just like OK, my daughter’s gay, continue. Angie: Oh yeah, gay would be easier. Sean: That’s, I’m so sorry, it’s not just like I like boys and girls – and I’m a boy. And now I need hormones, get on that. Angie: Yeah. So, I was just saying that; I’ve been doing it one by one, but I didn’t send the email yet. Sean: Oh, is it still typed out, or? Angie: It’s all typed out and I just got too tired. I got tired. . . And then I just stopped and I said I can’t do this just yet. Sean: (nodding) Yeah, because that’s fine. Angie: Because you know when you tell one person, they’re gonna tell more people. Sean: Yeah, and I think it’s. . . Angie: And it’s not a secret. Sean: No. Angie: We are gonna . . . But I also don’t want people. . . Sean: Giving the wrong information. Angie: Using you as a piece of gossip. Sean: (nodding) Oh yeah, I get that, but. . . Angie: (gestures as if to pick up a telephone) Did you hear? Did you hear? Sean: But it is, it is kind of my only option right now because I want people to know. Angie reported that the video-recorded conversation was the first time she had told Sean that coming out is stressful for her. She felt relieved that Sean seemed to respond well to this 117 disclosure. Sean provided empathy and support for Angie around the coming out process. For example, he acknowledged the difficulty she was experiencing in sending a “coming out” email to a relative and affirmed her way of coming out to others (i.e., not via social media). In the video recall interview, he shared that, while he knows his mom is strong and capable, he wants to be able to offer support to her now that he is getting older. Sean wanted to protect Angie from negative judgment related to her support for his gender affirmation process. It angers him when others question Angie’s support as it undermines the hard work they’ve been doing to move forward with affirming his identity. Throughout their conversation, Sean and Angie used humor to connect and engage with one another and lighten the conversation. Angie started the conversation out on a humorous note when she said coming out has been a journey for her, gesturing as if to gag when saying the word “journey.” One example of Sean’s humor was when he told his mom that he can deal with coming out to others. He said, “I can handle it myself. Um, I’m wearing pull-ups, I’m a big boy now!” He also used humor to talk about challenging issues they are facing related to coming out. For example, with gestures and an animated expression, he said he would “beat the shit out of” people who might say negative things about how his mom is supporting him with his gender affirmation. Angie was saddened to hear about some of the struggles Sean faces; however, she also felt excited about his future and was looking forward to watching him become an adult. Angie hopes Sean will also realize that his life can be rich and fulfilling. With hope and optimism, Sean shared how he is becoming more of himself, and able to pursue his passions, “. . . because I am still figuring a lot of stuff out but I’m on the right path where I don’t have to be distracted by it anymore.” 118 Sean reported that, even before he came out to Angie, she had always taught him that personality is more important than one’s physical attributes. Sean recognized that this attitude helped him to deal with his worries about not being accepted or loved by others due to his physical appearance. In the video recall interview, Sean stated: It is, well, it’s always what my mom has said, because before I came out I would talk about how I liked people, but I don’t think they would like me back, I don’t know, certain things I was wearing or how my hair was, and she’d always tell me, like it’s more about personality, it’s not really what you look like. . . like as soon as she told me that, I was really starting to think like yeah well it’s kind of rude to just like somebody only for how they look and not how they are, like how they act. Angie had viewed personality as more important than appearance or gender even before their SOGI project, which may have contributed to her not experiencing a “mourning” period or a sense of loss related to her son’s SOGI-status. Sean understood that Angie was going through an emotional process due to his general growth – and not simply due to his SOGI-status. Joint Project. In the video-recorded conversation, Sean and Angie confirmed with each other that they need to come out to affirm Sean for whom he is and to prevent him from being misgendered and misunderstood. Angie, as the parent, has generally been the one to provide guidance and support; however, Sean is also doing this now, by helping Angie with her own coming out process in a way that honors who she is as a person. Consequently, their joint project was identified as the following: Together, Sean and Angie are maintaining a strong connection with one another through dialogue and humor; and giving each other support to face the challenges related to coming out to others about Sean’s SOGI-status. Both Sean and Angie confirmed the joint project at the second interview. Over the course of the study, they continued 119 to help one another develop strategies for coming out to others; however, the aspect of their joint project related to “coming out” became less relevant after disclosing to close friends and family members. At the end of data collection, their joint project had evolved and focused more on providing and getting support through the various stages of coming out and affirming Sean’s gender identity. During the telephone monitoring period, Sean noted that coming out is an ongoing process and stated “I guess it’ll always be the same kind of project going on. You are always coming out to people no matter who you meet or don’t meet.” Sean also noted that, “the people around us already know so it’s not as much of the same conversation going around.” During the telephone monitoring period, Sean and Angie continued to support each other with the coming out process in a way where their experiences were valued and affirmed. A strong sense of we-ness—together, we are figuring this out—continued to be evident in Sean and Angie’s relationship. They seemed very in sync generally, and specifically with regards to Sean’s SOGI-status. Embedded in their SOGI project was a joint goal of moving forward with gender-affirming surgery for Sean. Angie inquired initially with a provincial health organization which provided her with a list of surgeons. Together, Sean and Angie looked at the surgeons’ profiles, discussed them, and ultimately Sean chose the doctor who would perform his surgery. Together, they flew to a different city for a consultation with the surgeon Sean had chosen. At the end of data collection, they were waiting for a surgery date, and both expressed anticipation and hope around the surgery. Throughout the process, it seemed that Angie took care of planning and administrative tasks (e.g., asking for information, and booking appointments), and Sean had ultimate autonomy over the decisions related to his medical care. Sean and Angie continued to maintain a strong connection with one another during the length of the study. Action taken toward this shared goal included joint activities, conversations, 120 and hobbies. For example, they reported that they enjoy jointly watching TV, and taking care of their many pets and plants. During the Covid-19 pandemic, they worked out a system for getting groceries together where Angie would drive to the supermarket, and Sean would do the shopping. When Angie was away on business for a few weeks, they maintained their connection by “hanging out” on the phone daily. During the telephone monitoring period, Sean and Angie were engaged in a process of distancing from one another while remaining connected. Sean did this by “pushing away” from Angie and spending less time with her. At the same time, he seemed to be developing more relational awareness. He said, “I push away. . . We fight sometimes, I can be a jerk sometimes, but I’m way more aware of it now. . . we are always able to move on from it. Relationships aren’t all sunshine and rainbows.” Angie began to recognize her own needs and take a step back from Sean so that he could “step up.” Stepping back was not easy for Angie, as she was concerned about Sean’s well-being and wanted to provide him with support and guidance. She faced Sean’s resistance with patience and understanding, recognizing the normative nature of his push for independence. Even while he was “pushing away,” Sean was recognizing how important his mom is to him and learning to believe her unconditional love for him. He said, “I start to miss her after a while. . . she cares about the stupid nonsense no one else would.” Concluding Comments. Before Sean’s coming out, Sean and Angie had a solid relational foundation with open lines of communication. They are important to each other. They employ strategies, such as humor, mutual empathy, authenticity, and shared activities, to grow their relationship. There is a sense that anything is speakable in their relationship. Regarding the SOGI project, Angie has been present every step of the way, seeming to understand and appreciate each part of Sean’s SOGI journey. Collaborative statements such as “we went with 121 gay” and “we don’t care what others think” express a strong sense of solidarity and leave concepts such as “support” or “acceptance” to seem almost irrelevant – as these aspects have already been deeply woven into the fabric of the relationship. When Angie and Sean were discussing Sean’s childhood ideas about gender, Angie pointed out that Sean “didn’t really see gender” as a child. Prompts such as these provided Sean with a lens through which to understand and accept his developmental processes. They also offered a glimpse into a relationship history – a mother who listens, remembers, and comes to a holistic understanding of her child; and in so doing builds a relationship where acceptance is unquestioned. Even before Sean came to terms with his SOGI-status, Angie had an intuitive understanding of what he was experiencing, asking him if he wanted to be a boy before he came out to her. Sean and Angie seem to have come to terms with the past. Angie is not “mourning a loss,” and old photographs are not a problem for Sean, who expressed understanding of his mom’s need for memories. The challenge remaining for Sean and Angie seems related to the future and how they can go beyond their relationship now that they have successfully navigated Sean’s mental health crisis and the beginning stages of the coming out process. Assertion. The relationship project is inseparable from the SOGI project in this dyad; the youth’s SOGI construction is unfolding and is dependent every day on the stable ground of the relationship project. Coming out to Angie not only provided Sean with much needed support and affirmation, but it also provided the dyad with a joint project, the byproduct of which has been relational growth and a greater sense of meaning, i.e., a better understanding of who each person is in the world and what is important to them. They have found a way to address Sean’s SOGI-122 status and move forward with their lives, focusing on what is important for them as individuals and as a dyad. Dyad 5: Sarah (Youth) and Michael (Parent) Background and Context. Sarah is 25 years old and lives in a medium-sized city in Canada. She has been working in a professional role full-time since graduating from university. Sarah identifies as a trans lesbian Christian woman, and she has a partner whom she has been with for several years. When asked why she wanted to participate in this study, she said “I don’t feel there is a lot of. . . trans representation particularly in ways that center voices from queer and trans people, so it was an opportunity to participate in something like that, and I thought it would be worthwhile.” In the warm-up interview, Sarah provided the context surrounding her initial coming-out to her parents. She said: …even though I only came out four and a half years ago, it was something I definitely had been struggling with for a very long time, prior to that, for most of my life. Um, and it kind of developed this cycle of recognition and repression, and a few months before that, I kind of got to a point where it had gotten beyond the point where I could repress or anything like that, I mean, I came out to my partner for one. And, in combination with pre-existing mental health issues, in addition to having this situation where it was kind of, this path that I had built for myself in denying myself was no longer feasible, and it became very difficult to process, and to keep moving forward, um, I ended up in the hospital for suicidal ideation. And it became increasingly clear that like that I couldn’t… (pause) My whole life I’d kind of seen it as two paths. I could either keep going, and keep repressing, and keep going that way, or I could come out with my life, when in fact there was really only one option for me. It was either keep going and do this or (pause) or really nothing else. 123 Sarah described her experience coming out to her parents as generally positive. In addition, she said it was: “a learning experience at first, at times more so than others. The intention was always there which was good, it kept me going through it . . . you take the good with the bad I guess.” Michael identifies as a heterosexual cisgender Christian man and works as a church minister. He is married to a heterosexual cisgender woman and has three children, including Sarah. Michael said he has a loving relationship with Sarah, and that she came out to him as transgender and lesbian about four and a half years ago. Michael values each individual’s ability to speak their own truth – something which was apparent from the screening interview onward. When the interviewer initially asked about Sarah’s coming out, Michael pointed out respectfully that this was Sarah’s story to tell, and that he would wait for the in-person interview to let her share the coming-out story before he would feel comfortable sharing his feelings related to her story. When asked in the warm-up interview why he chose to participate in the study, Michael said: I’ll echo what Sarah said, about voices needing to be heard, and obviously, Sarah’s voice is not my voice, I’m not assuming that it is, but I think that these are important conversations for us as a larger society to be having. . . The (city) community center had an event on SOGI policy (in the public schools), and I thought, well, I’ll go, and I’ll wear my collar. . . It was fairly poorly attended, but I think these conversations just need to be had, so. SOGI-Specific Action. One of Sarah and Michael’s joint goals in the conversation was to talk about the past, especially as it relates to Sarah’s coming out process. Both Michael and Sarah took action toward this goal by sharing thoughts and feelings about the past. They were jointly processing how things might have been different if they had realized what was going on 124 for Sarah when she was younger. Sarah began the conversation by asking Michael if he had any questions about what she had said in the warm-up interview when she had talked about her experience coming out to the family. This promptly led to a discussion of the past: Sarah: Do you have any questions about anything that I said so far? Michael: No, no, no. Uh, well you know that every parent deals with regrets, right. Because… I’m a person who lives with regrets. Sarah: I feel the same way. Michael: And one wish is, I so wish, you know, we could have figured this out and helped you, and I, yeah (gesturing to let Sarah talk). Sarah: Yeah, I mean, same on my end as well, because kind of one of the, like that cycle of realization and repression, and stuff that I was talking about, that’s kind of how the, that’s a tough thing to struggle with, just knowing that, if I had stuck with it, in one of those recognition parts, like how different would my life have been, how different would my life be now. Michael: Yeah, and I think, of course, I’ve also thought, what if you had, at age 7 or 13 or whatever, told me – would I have been supportive, would I have been able to understand? I’d like to think that I would have and that it would have been good, but maybe I would have said something really stupid (both smiling and laughing lightly). Right, I don’t know, you know, you don’t know. Michael opened the door for Sarah to tell him where he might have “screwed up” as a parent, sending her the message that it is safe for her to disclose potentially anxiety-provoking material from the past. Michael’s sharing of regrets facilitated Sarah’s recounting of her own regret over not sticking with the “recognition” phase of her identity construction process. In the video recall 125 interview, Michael noted that “. . . this was an opportunity for me to say to her, if there’s anything you need to tell me, where I’ve screwed up as a parent, tell me.” Making space to share the challenges of the past seemed to be a validating experience for both Sarah and Michael. Regret, however, did not translate into a sense of despair. Rather, it seemed that Michael and Sarah both wanted to temper the past regrets with acceptance and optimism, and gratitude for their lives in the present. Sarah shared with Michael her strategy of telling herself “. . . not to speculate (about the past) because that, it doesn’t lead anywhere in the future. It doesn’t lead anywhere forward; it just leads back.” Additionally, she shared with Michael how she is happy with herself in the following exchange: Sarah: . . . especially with something like hormone replacement therapy, it’s kind of one of those things where the earlier you start, the better for you. So, it’s kind of one of those things that I just have to remind myself that, like, if I had done it then, I wouldn’t have this life that I am happy with now. Michael: I always thought that about my upbringing. Different story but it made me who I am, and I’m not unhappy with who I am. But I think, yeah, I admire you. One of Michael and Sarah’s joint goals was to make sense of identity construction as a general process, and as it relates to Sarah’s individual process of realizing, accepting, and embracing her SOGI-status. They talked about the restrictive nature of identity labels, and how these labels prevented Sarah from understanding herself and identifying with a particular community. Sarah talked about how each person has their own unique experience that may not match the identity labels we use in the English language. She said: Even people who are straight and who are cisgender, their definitions of sexuality and gender identity vary greatly. Like one person’s experience of being a woman is very 126 different than someone else’s. They could both be cis, but they could still have very different experiences. Michael shared his perspective on gender identity. He told Sarah that he and his wife had never expected her to be a certain way based on gender and that they had embraced her for whom she was as a person. In the following excerpt, Michael responds after Sarah describes how her coming out was complicated by her realization that she identified as trans and as a lesbian. Michael: Well, that’s what threw us, I think. You know, because your mother’s not a girly-girl, and I’m not an alpha male. . . I think because there aren’t specific gender characteristics, right, you know, I mean, women can do anything, and men can do anything, right, and there aren’t those boundaries. Sarah: Yeah. It’s a stereotype of trans women as well, that like, they are straight, even though most of the trans women I know aren’t. That was another one of those. . . Michael: Yeah (nodding). Sarah: . . . it was like well I’m attracted to women, so I gotta, like there’s no way like that that could be me, or something. Michael: (nodding) Well, that would be really hard, right. Sarah: Yeah. Michael: Yeah, I think that would be hard to figure that out, yeah. Both Sarah and Michael conveyed understanding regarding the complicated nature of Sarah’s coming out, and how it was confusing for them at the time. They were able to look back on Sarah’s coming out with more distance, and even with laughter. Sarah: It was kind of double coming-out, it wasn’t just, I remember on the… Michael: Well, exactly, well, and that’s… 127 Sarah:. . . drive coming back after, it was like, So are you and (girlfriend) still (together)? I was like, yup (nodding). Michael: Well, and that was something – did we say that? Sarah: I think yeah, you did. Michael: Because it was certainly one of the things that mom and I went, Well, we didn’t know we had a girl, we have a girl, and she’s a lesbian (both laughing) because like, yeah, aren’t we surprised. Sarah seemed to have the intention to disclose on a deeper level than was typical for their relationship, sharing previously undisclosed internal processes. For example, Sarah recounted her protracted struggle with SOGI and described how, as a young adolescent, she hadn’t seen herself fitting into any of the “boxes.” Sarah: . . . to intellectualize people can sort of leave people to ignore the humanity behind it and engage with people. Michael: Yeah. And I think it can be a control mechanism. Sarah: Yeah. Michael: Because I don’t understand it, it can’t be, right, or whatever right (both nodding) and so. Sarah: Or conversely, if you think you understand it, then, oh but it only, like, like that was one of the things that I ran into when I was sort of struggling with my identity was kind of figuring out like, I don’t fit these boxes (Michael: Right.). Like, even before I had the language, I had this very distinct idea, like before I even knew what the, the word trans, I had this very distinct idea (Michael: Yeah.) of Oh, it’s X, Y, and Z (Michael nodding). But, that very much left me (pause) I mean, for one, I lost out in terms of my individual 128 experience because I didn’t manage to find myself in those categories (Michael: Right.). But also, it’s kind of one of those things that we lose out on community (inaudible); if we only think it’s X, Y, and Z (Michael: That’s right.), we don’t see people that are A, B, and C. Michael: Exactly, yeah, and I think you know, we, you know, this whole binary thing, like, everyone is different (Sarah: Mhm; nodding). Everyone is unique. Sarah said that it felt “validating” to talk with Michael about her identity struggles and she felt like Michael was engaging with her on a deeper level than he had in the past. During the telephone monitoring period, Sarah and Michael shared the goal of moving forward with Sarah’s gender affirmation process. Sarah flew to another city to have gender-affirming surgery, and Michael accompanied Sarah home after her surgery, despite the risks involved due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Michael said, “Supporting her, accompanying her, is a way to show her how much I value her and everything that she is.” Following her surgery, Sarah reported that she was staying at her parents’ house so they could help her with the post-surgical care regimen. Describing her time since the surgery, Sarah said that even with the intense pain she was experiencing, she was “able to be more present” in her body, noting that, moving forward, she will no longer have to deal with that dimension of her dysphoria. Sarah reported that it meant a lot to her when Michael flew across the country to pick her up and bring her home after her surgery. Sarah and Michael share a religious faith, which was a point of connection for them and was illuminated in their conversation when Michael described a biblical story that affirmed Sarah’s SOGI-status. Sarah explained in the video recall how it was validating to hear her father use religion to affirm her identity in the conversation. 129 Michael, it seems, has developed a personal theory of love that is intertwined with his faith, and he is intentionally applying that theory to his relationship with Sarah, leading him to not only accept her SOGI-status but also to embrace these aspects of her identity. In the video recall, he shared how becoming a parent was a humbling experience that opened him up to a more mature and selfless kind of love, where “. . . you don’t love someone for your own sake, you love them for what’s best for them.” Joint Project. Together, Michael and Sarah seemed to use the video-recorded conversation as a means to process the past in terms of Sarah’s coming out and open up about things that they hadn’t discussed before. By connecting to and expanding on each other’s thoughts, they were working together to build a shared understanding. Whatever idea was brought forward was given full attention – it was as if they were signaling to each other: Your words are important to me because you are important to me. This brought their conversation to a deeper, more vulnerable level. As Sarah so eloquently said, “We were both very present with each other. . . just sort of working together to find a synthesis of ideas that built to a better understanding between both of us.” Sarah and Michael’s joint project was identified as: Together, they were processing painful or confusing moments from the past and expressing a shared sentiment of acceptance and celebration of the present; with an over-arching goal of cementing their love, respect, and admiration for one another. Both Michael and Sarah reported in the second meeting and follow-up telephone monitoring calls that the above joint project was an accurate representation of their relational process. Throughout the data collection period, Sarah and Michael maintained a connection through various activities. One joint activity that they both reported engaging in during telephone monitoring was hiking. Michael reported that hiking was a good way for him to connect with his 130 children. He said, “It’s something close to my heart to share that . . . just walk quietly and have the benefit of being together.” Sarah said, “It’s [hiking] not something that totally takes over your attention like a movie but lets you facilitate that [connection].” As the Covid-19 pandemic had begun during the telephone monitoring period, their in-person contact became more limited. Despite this barrier, they found other ways to connect, such as talking on the phone or video-chatting. In addition, Michael regularly brought groceries to Sarah’s apartment. Over time, the context for Sarah and Michael’s joint project shifted due to major life events, such as the loss of a beloved family member, Sarah’s surgery, and the Covid-19 pandemic. Their joint project consequently became more intensified and present-focused, with the events appearing to bring them even closer together. Concluding Comments. The theme of regret was prominent in this dyad, with both Michael and Sarah sharing regrets in the video-recorded conversation. Michael was particularly reflective – looking to the past in an attempt to make amends and learn how to be a better parent. Regret, however, did not translate into despair for either Michael or Sarah, both of whom showed great strength and resilience. In the face of the death of a loved one, a deadly pandemic, and Sarah’s surgery all within a few months, Sarah and Michael expressed hope for the future, gratitude for one another, and reported that their relationship was getting stronger and deeper. Sarah reported at the end of the study that she was, despite mourning the loss of her family member and dealing with post-surgical pain, feeling more whole and more connected to her father than at the beginning of the study. Michael was drawing on resources, such as his faith, counselling support, and his work, to move through a crisis and continue supporting Sarah and the rest of his family. 131 Sarah and Michael were sorting out the past in the context of a highly positive relationship. Both seemed careful with their words and highly attuned to one another. They were extremely respectful of one another and a strong feeling of admiration from Michael toward Sarah was evident throughout the study. Michael was engaging with Sarah on a deep level and continued to honor her experience. Sarah perceived that the level of understanding from Michael regarding who she is as a whole person (including, but not limited to, her SOGI-status) had been increasing over time. Thus, it seems that both Sarah and Michael perceived that their relationship had been growing and strengthening since the beginning of the research study. Assertion. This case exemplifies the relational nature of the coming out process – who I am is being affirmed and nurtured within the relationship. Sarah shared her lengthy struggle with coming to terms with her identity, and how she eventually realized the only choice besides dying was to be who she is. Michael talked about his own journey of finding himself and shared some of his identity-related struggles with Sarah. This resonated with Sarah, who hadn’t realized how similar their paths were prior to the video-recorded conversation. Together, they were re-visiting Sarah’s coming out – this time with a deeper sharing of their internal processes – and arriving at a greater sense of meaning and shared understanding. With the relationship firmly in place and the sense that her father understands her more holistically, Sarah was in a position to integrate previously undisclosed aspects of her identity on a deeper level. Dyad 6: Jason (Youth) and Julie (Parent) Background and Context. Jason is 17 years old and identifies as a queer transgender man. He is in his final year of high school and devotes a lot of time to his studies and extra-curricular activities. In the screening call, Jason mentioned that his mom Julie has been a great support for him. When asked what made him want to participate in this study, Jason said, “there is so little 132 research on trans youth so I feel like this will be really beneficial. For other people to be like Oh, this is what it looks like.” When asked in the warm-up interview how the journey has been for him, he said: Really long, really long. Because I came out when I was almost 14 and getting to this point where I’ve been on hormones, I had top surgery, like it’s been a long time. There weren’t really systems in place a couple years ago. We are just starting to get there. Like they only improved the surgeons in (his city) last summer. Julie identifies as a straight cisgender woman, has two children including Jason, and is divorced. She lives with Jason and her other child in a medium-sized city in Canada and works full-time. She said in the warm-up interview that she heard about this research study from Jason’s doctor and wanted to participate to “. . . make something better for the next person because it wasn’t an easy route.” Julie reported that Jason came out to her as transgender four years ago by giving her a handwritten letter. She showed Jason support and acceptance immediately while going through a solitary process of integrating and understanding this new information about her child. Julie reported that she had a few sleepless nights processing her thoughts and feelings. Eventually, Julie said she had an epiphany – a realization that her child was still the same person and “only the packaging had changed.” In the warm-up interview, she said to Jason: Yeah, I was trying to sort it out, so I didn’t wanna be you know questioning. Like when you first came out to me, I’m glad I at least had the good sense to have the right response of going I don’t know what this means but we’ll figure it out. But I didn’t sleep for like two or three days. I did not sleep. Like, I just was like I don’t know what this means, and as a mother, you’re so worried what does this mean, will they be mean to him, will he be 133 bullied? So scared that people are going to be mean to you. And all those processes of Oh will people be horrible to them at school? But it was good that you reached out and found (youth group) and then there was a parent group, and that was nice to have that too, you’re going OK you’re not alone. When asked how the coming out journey has been, Julie and Jason both stated that the journey has been “very long” and that they have been navigating systems for a long time. They shared how it was challenging to proceed with Jason’s gender affirmation when there weren’t proper support systems in place, with some doctors even refusing to help, saying that Jason’s case was too complicated. They said that the available support has recently improved in their city with a new interprofessional agency that helps transgender and gender-diverse youth access treatment in a more streamlined and efficient manner. The following excerpt provides some background information regarding Jason and Julie’s initial joint efforts to support Jason with his transition after he came out to Julie: Julie: So, it was a long process, and our family doctor was really good because I initially went to him after Jason came out saying I don’t know what I’m supposed to do (laughing). Interviewer A: Yeah, you’re trying to learn about something new to you. For you (Jason) this is so intrinsic, and for you (Julie) this is your child who you love. Julie: Yeah, and you wanna do the right thing. You’re just not sure what the right thing is, so I went to him. Jason: I remember, you took me to Dr. X, and you’re like Let’s get blood work done, let’s test everything (laughs). So, we did, and everything from thyroid function to a chromosome test. 134 Julie: Yeah, it was everything, because he didn’t know what to do either so it’s like one step. . . so Dr. X was like I don’t know, let’s test for everything. And we will eliminate it, and if everything else is healthy, well, then your child is transgender (both laughing). So, it was a process because you’re not even sure what the next thing is to do, there’s not a blueprint. Jason: Luckily there kind of is now because if you go to (agency) they know exactly what to do. Julie: But I was a relentless nag with appointments. Jason: Yeah, that’s very true. Getting on cancellation lists and like calling every week to see if something opened up. Julie: They were like please make this lady go away (laughing). Interviewer A: It’s interesting, most of our discussion is about the systems, but it’s also an emotional process for you and for you, and about your relationship, but so much of it is just how do we do this. Jason: Yeah, it is a lot of how do we get where we need to be. Julie: It’s as you said, it’s these two simultaneous, you have this emotional journey, and logistically you’re still like, we still have to figure out what we have to do next so. So, and that way being transgender is different from being gay, because you don’t have body modifications and hormone things, there’s differences. Jason: And like with being gay you have a choice of who to tell but when you’re transitioning you kind of have to tell everyone you know. Julie: Yeah, there is no secrecy, it’s like you are clearly different. And it’s ongoing. 135 Julie described how she faced her own fears and those being projected by others, educated herself, and began to see how the gender affirmation process was drastically improving Jason’s well-being and quality of life. Julie: The more time that passes, it’s like clearly this is not a phase. And often as a parent people would ask me ‘Well what if they change their mind?’ And I was like, ‘Well if you do your research, statistically speaking that basically never happens, it almost never happens.’ Jason: Yeah. Especially if they’ve been out for a long time and have gone through all the safeguards to access treatment. Julie: And I could see from your mental health how you were. It was like, I had a child that was miserable and depressed, and then once you got on hormone blockers it was like my child is back – you’re happy, you’re communicating, you’re interacting, so it’s like clearly this is better for you. SOGI-Specific Action. It seemed that Jason and Julie’s primary joint goal in the video-recorded conversation was to discuss the past in terms of Jason’s gender identity construction, and share experiences related to Jason’s coming out. Julie: So, you said you wanted to talk about the stuff when you were a kid (referring to what Jason had shared in the warm-up interview). Jason: Yeah. Julie: I’m curious to hear that. Jason: Yeah, because when I came out, it was like a surprise to you, you said, you weren’t expecting it (Julie: Yeah.). I saw signs looking back on it as a kid, it was so obvious. Julie: What did you see as the signs? 136 Jason: I can remember being about five and I was sitting in the bathtub, and I had come home from kindergarten that day and I was thinking about what the people at school were talking about because all the girls were like telling me how they were going to be these pretty teenagers and they were gonna date all these boys and I was like, I didn’t connect with any of that while they were talking about it so then I was thinking about it and I was trying so hard to picture myself as a teenager or even an adult and I could not picture a girl. I could only picture a boy. Julie: I remember you saying that afterwards. Jason: And I’m like, how did that not (chuckles) tip me off? Julie: But you were five. You didn’t have the perspective. Jason: I was, I was five (nodding). Julie: Yeah. Jason: But that should have been obvious, and then I kind of went nope, not dealing with that now and then put it on the back burner and ignored it. Jason shared his memories of gender-based segregation in primary school: He wanted to be one of the boys; however, he recognized that there was a “barrier” to playing with children with whom he felt comfortable, and he coped with this barrier by suppressing his wishes. Jason recalled one instance when a family member teased him about having boys at his birthday party, after which he felt ashamed and consequently became more vigilant in choosing the gender of his playmates. Jason shared with Julie how things “didn’t make sense” as a child. He would have strong feelings about his gender identity but not be able to understand them. He said, “Like looking back on that, I can see all of it. But I was a kid, like it didn’t make sense to me.” 137 Jason also shared with Julie that, as a child, he didn’t know that being trans was even an option for him. He said, “The only trans person I knew of was Jazz Jennings. And she was a trans girl, so I thought there were only trans girls in the world. I didn’t know you could be a trans guy.” The conversation provided Jason and Julie with an opportunity to share internal processes they had not been able to disclose with one another when Jason first came out to Julie. Jason, for example, shared his concern that Julie might be resistant to medical intervention – something he felt he urgently needed at the time he first came out. Jason: I was also worried because like even as soon as I realized it like I knew that I wanted top surgery, I knew that I wanted to go on testosterone. That always felt right for me, as soon as I knew that was something I could do (Julie: Yeah.). I knew it was right for me (Julie: Yeah.) and I wasn’t sure how you would take that since our family is generally more, not resistant to medical stuff, but it’s like a last resort (Julie: Yes.) for the majority of our family, we will try everything else first, and I was like, I knew it was right for me (Julie: Yes.) and I didn’t know how you would react to that. Julie: Oh really (Jason: Yeah.), that was the piece you weren’t sure of. Did you think I wouldn’t let you have top surgery, is that what you were worried about? Jason: I, I was worried you’d make me wait until I was 19 and I was like (said in a slightly louder, more confident voice) I want this now. If I could have had it yesterday, I would have (Julie: Yeah.). So, I was worried about that because I wasn’t sure you would let me go through with all of that and I knew how gross I felt just having my body produce so much of the wrong hormone. Like it’s, it’s hard to even explain, but it felt like physical illness (Julie: Yeah.). It felt so wrong that it was like making me sick. 138 Julie also had the goal of sharing her experience related to Jason’s coming out and giving Jason insight into what she had been experiencing at that time. She told Jason in the conversation (for the first time) that she was surprised when he came out as she hadn’t been expecting it. Julie stated that she had been more masculine than Jason as a child, therefore it had not been apparent to her that Jason could have been struggling with his gender identity. Julie also shared her experience of not knowing what to do after Jason came out. She expressed her desire to help Jason with his transition on the one hand, and her fears around making life-altering decisions that he could later regret, on the other: Julie: I could see how hard it was on you (Jason: Yeah.). So, as I said it was a process, so it wasn’t like; I mean it wasn’t that, I mean you told me, I was right away like Yay, well let’s go get everything done then (Jason: Yeah.) because it’s like you have to figure it out like, you’re. . . Jason: (talking at the same time as Julie) I knew you’d come around. Julie: I was wanting to make the right decision for you so for me it didn’t even feel like a coming around, it was just like I want to do the right thing for my child but what is that right thing? Is the right thing. . . you know, I didn’t even know about hormone blockers when you first told me (Jason: Yeah.) so it’s like I don’t know what the right thing to do is. . . also at that time – like now I don’t have that fear, but at that time when you were first coming out, my fear was also as a mother, if I let you do the next step too quickly I didn’t want you, then a few years down the road going, How could you let me make that decision to permanently alter myself, I was too young I wasn’t ready. You should have never let me. You were supposed to rein it in, you were my mom. 139 Jason: Yeah. Which is why I was so glad I could go on hormone blockers because you can be on hormone blockers for a period of two years. It’s pretty low risk for that, and it just, it gave me time, it gave me breathing room. Julie: Yeah. But that’s why I never wanted you to be like regretful of the decision and then coming back and going, You should have stopped me, I was way too young to make that decision. Jason: Yeah, which I can understand where you are coming from for that, but for me like as soon as I knew that was something I could do, I wanted to medically transition, and I knew that felt right, honestly I. . . Julie: Yeah, and you were very clear and very consistent. That’s why, as we went through the processes and I got the feedback from you know Doctor X and all these other people involved then you’re going, OK, well, we’re making the right decision (Jason: Yeah.) because all these people who know a lot more about this than me are saying you’re heading down the right path so to me it didn’t feel like coming around because it was like I’d fight for you no matter what you wanted to do. It was just like figuring out what the right thing is to do and not wanting to make the wrong decision for you. Jason: Yeah, I think I could see that you were worried about that and looking back on it I can be more sympathetic towards you. In the moment I couldn’t. Julie: Yeah, I mean you were a kid, and you were dealing with all your own stuff. Julie asked Jason why he had been hesitant to come out to her: “But were you afraid I would reject you in any way? Or did you know at the core I would never do that?” Seeming to recognize that it was challenging for Jason to talk about fears of rejection, Julie didn’t push Jason for an immediate answer; however, she revisited the topic later in the conversation and asked 140 Jason: “…did you think I would react poorly, did you think I would be disappointed, did you think I would reject you…” In the video recall, she reported that she was thankful she could ask Jason what he was feeling at the time he came out to her and grateful to hear that he knew she loved him and would not have rejected him. Joint Project. Since Jason came out to Julie, they have been working together to find the best path forward. By doing this together, it seems as though their relationship has strengthened. At this point in Jason’s gender journey, they are both feeling grateful and hopeful, despite the challenges that persist. It seemed that they were both using the video-recorded conversation as an opportunity to process the past and make sense of events that had been challenging to understand. They did this by sharing their perspectives on SOGI-specific experiences while remaining engaged and mutually empathic. They considered each other’s feelings but did not shy away from asserting their perspectives on aspects of the past that may have been difficult to discuss. This likely increased their understanding of one another’s actions and possibly repaired aspects of their relationship that might have been disrupted. Jason and Julie’s joint project was identified as the following: They both seemed to want to maintain a strong relationship: one that is open, honest, and respectful of each other’s feelings – one where they can support each other around challenges that may arise and celebrate accomplishments on the “coming out” journey. Additionally, they seemed to share the goal of helping others and advocating for SGM youth. Both Jason and Julie reported that the relational aspect of the project had continued and “progressed” over time (Julie’s words) and become more “authentic” (Jason’s words). Julie said that she and Jason have both changed as individuals since the first meeting which “changes the (relational) dynamic but the core values are the same.” Jason said, “From an outsider’s 141 perspective it (his relationship with Julie) would look the same, but it’s a lot more real now, I’m letting her in on more of my life.” In the telephone monitoring, Julie said, I would still say that they are common goals. . . My perception is we’ve even progressed with the passage of time. It’s not new anymore; this is the reality, so you settle into it, and you feel more comfortable. Throughout the data collection period, it was evident that Jason and Julie value each other’s perspective and enjoy spending time together. During the Covid-19 pandemic, “mundane” activities, such as grocery shopping, cooking, and taking care of the family pet became opportunities for connection. Over time, their joint project became less about coming out and more about deepening their connection and launching Jason into adulthood. During the telephone monitoring period, Jason shared more about his difficulty opening up to Julie about his past struggles. He identified that the main barrier to sharing his experience with Julie had been the feeling that he needed to protect her from his past struggles. By opening up more to his mom about the challenges he faced in the past, he was able to feel more authentically connected to her. Jason said, “I was wanting to protect her. I think that affected our relationship, it still does to some degree, now I’m better at overcoming that. I’m getting better at figuring out why I have certain feelings.” In the final telephone call, Jason reported that he had achieved a sense of clarity about his past and was feeling much happier than he was at the first meeting when he attempted to paint a rosier picture of his experiences to protect Julie. Throughout the telephone monitoring period, Julie continued to have the goal of supporting Jason’s developing autonomy while being mindful of his emotional wellbeing as he transitions to adulthood. She did this by helping Jason to learn various life skills, such as driving a car and opening a bank account. 142 Concluding Comments. Julie and Jason faced challenging conversations in a very positive and constructive way. Jason had wanted to talk about the past in the video-recorded conversation: how he had been confused about his identity and how family expectations had affected him. Julie had lingering questions about the past which heretofore had gone unanswered. She wanted to know why Jason had waited to come out to her – had he worried she might reject him in any way? Both were sharing their understanding of the past, listening to one another’s perspectives, repairing a rupture in their relationship, and opening themselves up to deeper and more anxiety-provoking conversations. Final analysis indicated that change has been explicit in this dyad: Jason had moved from feeling overwhelmed, anxious, withdrawn, and secretive about his identity to open, secure, and confident. Julie had moved from a challenging period filled with rumination and self-doubt to a place where coming out to others about Jason is no longer challenging. Together, they have developed a new and different relationship. Jason says he is happier and more authentic. Julie reported feeling more comfortable with herself, with Jason’s well-being, and with her family as a whole. Assertion. The SOGI project is central in this case and the dyadic relationship is facilitating Jason’s SOGI construction. The relationship project provided a supportive context within which Jason was able to struggle with, share, accept, and embrace who he is as an individual. Jason has been forming his identity, his sense of who he is in the world, through his relationship with Julie. From the time he gave her the “coming out” letter, he has been sharing more about who he is with his mom and thereby better understanding who he is as a person. In tandem, Julie has been developing a newfound sense of strength and identity as a loving parent and advocate for SGM people. Moreover, as Julie said several times throughout the study, she is 143 always learning from Jason. Both Jason and Julie are opening themselves up to being influenced by one another. They respect each other as individuals yet recognize and embrace their interdependence. Cross-Case Analysis Cross-case analysis is the final stage in data analysis and involves extensive comparison of the dyads to extract common themes. Despite many differences among the dyads such as the youths’ age and SOGI-status, length of time since coming out to the participating parent, as well as other contextual differences (See Table 4.2), we found evidence of several commonalities among the cases. Specifically, all six dyads showed evidence of a dynamic relationship project, with significant action directed by the youth and parent participants toward joint goals of relationship maintenance or strengthening (See Table 4.3). These joint action processes contributed to the superordinate relationship project between the youth and parent. The dyads also exhibited a SOGI project which was embedded within the superordinate relationship project (See Table 4.2). SOGI-specific action processes were outlined in the individual-case findings, and here we highlight critical themes across cases that are pertinent to the youth and parent’s SOGI-specific action processes. Ultimately, the relationship and SOGI projects are interwoven; however, we are separating them as a means of conceptualizing and understanding joint action processes that are most relevant to the youth’s SOGI construction and coming out process. 144 Table 4.2 Self-Reported Demographic Information Note: All parents identified as heterosexual and cisgender, and were between 48 and 58 years of age. All parents identified as White except for the parent in Dyad 1 who identified as a Person of Color. The parent in Dyad 2 and both participants in Dyad 5 identified as Christian; All participants were born in Canada except the father in Dyad 5, who was born in Europe. SO: Sexual Orientation; GI: Gender Identity Relationship to Youth Work Status Partner AgeAge coming out to parentYouth Work/Studies SO GIEthnic Identity1 Mother Full-time No 22 18 Work Gay Cisgender Biracial2 Mother Part-time Yes 22 18 Student Lesbian Gender Non-conformingWhite3 Mother Full-time No 17 14 Student PansexualTransgender MasculineMixed race4 Mother Part-time Yes 16 15 Student BisexualTransgender MaleBiracial5 Father Full-time Yes 25 21 Work LesbianTransgender FemaleWhite6 Mother Full-time No 17 14 Student QueerTransgender MaleWhiteDyad Parent Participant Youth Participant145 Table 4.3 Cross-Case Findings Dyad Joint Project Relationship Theme SOGI Theme To maintain a strong and supportive Mutual support, empathy, and Integrating youth’s partnerconnection with one another. shared interests/hobbies SOGI as a non-issue HumorTo engage in a trusting and mutually Mutual support, empathy, and Integrating youth’s partnersupportive relationship where they are shared interests/hobbies Open discussion of SOGI-related topicsin tune with one another. Cautious intentionality Youth educating parentHumor Parent coming out on youth’s behalfTo engage with one another in order to Mutual support, empathy, and Revisiting pastbuild a strong connection that facilities shared interests/hobbies Growth through struggleand supports Nick’s identity through Negotiating boundaries Open discussion of SOGI-related topicsdiscussions of his gender identity/ Humor Integrating youth’s partnersexual orientation, well-being, interests Parent coming out on youth’s behalfand relationships with friends and family.Gender-affirming projectTo maintain a strong connection with one Mutual support, empathy, and Parent coming out on youth’s behalfanother through dialogue and humor; shared interests/hobbies Growth through struggleand give each other support to face Openness Revisiting the pastchallenges related to coming out. Negotiating boundaries Open discussion of SOGI-related topicsHumor Gender-affirming projectTo process painful or confusing moments Mutual support, empathy, and Revisiting the pastfrom the past (related to Sarah’s shared interests/hobbies Growth through struggleidentity) and express a shared sentiment Shared religion Gender-affirming projectof acceptance and celebration of the Humor Open discussion of SOGI-related topicspresent; with an overarching goal of Parent coming out on youth’s behalfcementing their love, respect and Integrating youth’s partneradmiration for one another.To maintain a strong relationship; one that Mutual support, empathy, and Revisiting the Pastis open, honest, and respectful of each shared interests/hobbies Open discussion of SOGI-related topicsother’s feelings - one where they can Shared spirituality Parent coming out on youth’s behalfsupport each other around challenges Humor Growth through strugglethat may arise and celebrate Gender-affirming projectaccomplishments on the "coming out"journey. Additionally, they shared the project of advocating for and helpingothers in the SGM youth.456123146 Relationship Project Theme of Active Relational Engagement. A sense of active relational engagement was apparent in all six dyads. In the video-recorded conversations, parents provided the youth with ample space to share their experiences and responded in a way that facilitated elaboration and, in many cases, deeper disclosures by the youth participants. Parents actively listened and showed interest in what the youth was saying by acknowledging, affirming, and encouraging them as they spoke. They asked questions and provided empathic statements. Video-recall data indicate that parents were interested in what the youth were sharing with them and eager to learn more about their experiences. Youth participants afforded space for their parents’ querying and sharing through various functional steps, such as active listening, empathic statements, and gestures. During the telephone monitoring period, parents and youth both continued to report active engagement with one another. All dyads jointly engaged in a wide range of activities, such as hiking, walking, text messaging, talking on the phone, watching TV and films, visiting parks, taking care of pets, baking, painting, and grocery shopping. Each dyad seemed to have one or more specific interest or hobby through which they maintained or strengthened their connection. For example, Dyad 1 reported that they would often go walking and hiking together. Dyad 2 reported that they enjoyed going out to “trivia night” at pubs and watching films together. Dyad 3 reported that they enjoyed baking and spending time with their pet together. Dyad 4 reported that they had a shared passion for taking care of animals and a nightly ritual of watching TV together. The participants in Dyad 5 reported attending the same church and going on long hikes together. Dyad 6 reported that, in addition to “fun” activities like watching TV and going for a picnic by the lake, they also 147 do many “mundane” tasks together, such as grocery shopping, painting the house, and taking the dog for a walk. SOGI Project All of the dyads engaged in joint action related to the youth’s coming out process or SOGI construction. The relationship project existed prior to the youth’s original SOGI disclosure; therefore, the SOGI project was a novel process for the parent and youth to negotiate. Parent-youth joint action related to the SOGI project existed on a continuum from implicit (e.g., talking about the youth’s partner) to explicit (e.g., talking candidly about sexual attraction and intimacy). SOGI projects for the dyads with youth who identify as transgender (i.e., Dyads 3-6) were found to be the most explicit and dynamic, with parents being highly engaged in the SOGI construction process. Sharing the Youth’s SOGI Status (Coming Out). Each dyad gave a retrospective account of the youth’s initial SOGI disclosure to the parent, and action processes related to coming out were observed throughout the data collection period. Both retrospective and prospective data indicate that parents were, and continue to be, integral to the youth’s coming out process. In most dyads, the youth and parent had negotiated the coming out project and arrived at an agreement surrounding how and to whom the parent is permitted to share the youth’s SOGI-status (See Table 4.3). The youth in Dyad 2, for example, reported that, after she came out to her mother, her mother took over the responsibility of sharing her SOGI-status with relatives and family friends – something which she hadn’t wanted to do herself. Thus, while the parent was coming out on the youth’s behalf, the parent’s action was related to the joint project of coming out for the youth. Some dyads appeared to have an explicit conversation regarding strategies related to coming out to others (e.g., Dyads 4-6), while other dyads seemed to have a more implicit 148 understanding regarding the how and to whom of coming out (e.g., Dyads 1 and 2). In one dyad, the parent consulted with a psychologist to determine the best way she could support the youth with the coming out process. All dyads reported that coming out is an ongoing process – one that did not stop after the youth’s first SOGI disclosure. However, for Dyads 3-6, where the youth were coming out as transgender, more time and energy was spent on coming out to others. In Dyads 3, 4, and 5, participants reported that coming out as transgender in addition to coming out as non-heterosexual added a layer of complexity – in terms of the youth’s making sense of their identity prior to coming out, explaining their identity to their parents, and negotiating how to share this information with others. SOGI-Sharing Strategy: “Matter-of-Fact”. Several participants reported a strategy of making SOGI disclosures directly and matter-of-factly. Melissa (Dyad 4) shared that, after Nick first came out to her as trans, she was confused about his relationship with his boyfriend. She said in the warm-up interview: I didn’t understand that relationship (Nick’s relationship with his boyfriend) at first. I didn’t say anything about it, I just didn’t understand it. . . Nick is very wise for a very young person because. . . he said it doesn’t matter what is between your legs, it is what is in your heart. Oh yeah, shut up mom, so yeah, and you know, he said it matter-of-factly, and that’s good for me. It appeared that Melissa had learned from Nick’s SOGI disclosure, as it informed her approach when she came out to others on Nick’s behalf. In the telephone monitoring, for example, she described coming out to others about Nick assertively and matter-of-factly and feeling most comfortable with this approach as it presents the facts and doesn’t leave room for unnecessary 149 attention or concern. Sue, in Dyad 2, when asked if she ever feels like she has to explain her daughter’s SOGI-status to others, said, “People I know and people I talk to about my daughter, I’ll just matter-of-factly state that she is gay, I’ve never had any trouble with anybody else when I say that, it’s pretty well accepted I think.” Sean and Angie (Dyad 4) developed coming out strategies together; one of which was to be direct, specific, and as brief as possible. As Sean noted, “. . . it’s just so simple, there is a thing that I am and there is a definition to it. There is another thing that I am and there is a definition to it.” Julie (Dyad 6) also reported disclosing to others about Jason’s identity in a “matter-of-fact” way. She said the following in a telephone interview: If I saw someone I hadn’t seen in years who says you have a son, but you had a daughter, I’m just way more comfortable now being matter-of-fact. I am more comfortable, and it’s almost become irrelevant to me. It’s always welcome when people are supportive and ask thoughtful questions, but it actually doesn’t really matter. And any potential arguments that people have become less valid; questions that could have come up, like Aren’t you too young, What if you’re wrong? Those questions become less relevant as he’s out for longer. Clearly, he’s happy, he’s functioning better, so people’s questions become irrelevant. Joint Gender-Affirming Action. For Dyads 3-6 where the youth identified as transgender, there was a gender-affirming project embedded in the overarching SOGI project (see Table 4.3). In these dyads, the youth and parents were jointly navigating a journey of gender affirmation for the youth. Parents in these dyads actively supported the youth in their gender affirmation journey through various actions, such as: accessing resources, helping with paperwork (e.g., for name changes), booking medical appointments, assisting with decision-making around medical interventions (e.g., hormone blockers, hormone therapy, gender-affirming surgery), visiting 150 medical professionals alongside the youth, and shopping for binders or gender-affirming clothing. Parents in these four dyads also spent time acquiring new terminology related to the youth’s gender journey. Parents’ SOGI-specific actions were perceived as affirming by the youth. For example, Nick in Dyad 3 said the following about his mother’s efforts to help with his name change: “It was validating to see that she cared so much about getting it (paperwork for name change) done, she’s just a much more motivated person than me so it helps.” Sarah (Dyad 5) reported that it meant a lot to her to have her dad accompany her home by airplane following her gender-affirming surgery. In the telephone monitoring period, when Sean was choosing a doctor for his upcoming surgery, he reported that it was helpful to be able to discuss the various surgeons with Angie (i.e., by reading their bios online) before arriving at his choice. Sean also stated that it was helpful to have Angie attend a consultation meeting with him and his surgeon. Parents appeared to be reflecting on – and learning over time – how to provide the best support for their youth in their gender affirmation process. One challenge related to providing support was parents’ awareness that the support they were providing for the youth would potentially be judged negatively by others. One parent’s comment from the video recall interview highlights the lengthy nature of the gender affirmation process and the stigma, lack of awareness, and societal judgment that parents face related to this process: It’s not like you go I’m transgender and they do surgery the next day. It’s like psychiatrists, and psychologists, and doctors, you know it’s a long process before you’re there. So, there’s all the safeguards in place for the people who were confused so it doesn’t happen where people go all the way through to transition. . . So statistically speaking it doesn’t happen. And even if it does. . . People go, What if it does, and it happens down the road. And a couple of the people that asked me about this, I was like: ‘Well, you got married 151 right, and you’re divorced. So, you had to do that for the rest of your life because you made a decision twenty years ago?’ You go well now this is my reality now, so I want something different. If that’s true and we face that in twenty years well then we’ll figure that out in twenty years. Right now, this is [youth’s] truth so I support [youth] in [youth’s] truth because that’s what [youth] wants. Because you don’t say well, don’t get married because you might get divorced one day. You have to face that reality if it ever comes. But statistically speaking it doesn’t. With transgender people, it’s almost never. Similarly, one youth reported in the video recall interview that it is highly challenging to see their mother face others’ negative judgement for supporting them with their gender journey: I know my mom is very pacifist, very words before action kind of thing but I don’t want people messing with like, how she thinks of what I’m going through. So that’s what really gets on my nerves, when people start trying to change how she thinks of me, and what I’m going through. That’s when I get mad. I’m like, OK you bring that to me, and I will deal with them. Because she can do like nice, motherly, this is what my child is going through, but then if they’re like: Well, if you’re. . . and then I’m like, No you shut up, you come to me and then we can talk face-to-face about how this is not something my mother is forcing on me, it’s not a phase, it’s not something that I’m seeing and trying to be cool with, it sucks ass, and I’m still going through it because I can’t not. Parents were also affirming of youth’s gender expression. For example, one youth in the present study reported that he identified as masculine – however, he pointed out to his mother that the type of masculinity he identified with was associated more with caring and protecting others rather than asserting power over others. During the video recall interview, he elaborated on this by explaining to the researcher that he wanted to protect his parent from struggles and did 152 not identify with the “toxic” masculinity he had seen expressed by others in his community. In parallel, his mother reported that she could see her son’s masculinity expressed through his wanting to care for and protect others; and she noted that this was a progressive and sensitive way of “being a man;” something that she admired and had noticed developing in him over the years. Salient Actions A variety of intentional actions taken by parents and youth contributed to the overarching relationship and SOGI projects. The actions most relevant to the SOGI project noted during cross-case analysis were: (a) bringing up SOGI-specific topics; (b) revisiting the past; (c) integrating the youth’s partner; (d) mutual support and empathy; (e) humor; (f) gratitude; (g) hope and optimism; and (f) advocacy or helping others (See Table 4.3). Bringing up SOGI-Specific Topics. All of the dyads appeared comfortable talking about SOGI-specific topics, and the parent played a role in this by bringing up SOGI-specific topics, thereby implying that these topics are speakable. Parents’ ease with using and/or learning SOGI terminology, and openness to hearing the youth’s perspective on SOGI (i.e., in Dyads 2-6), appeared to offer a secure space for the youth to explore potentially anxiety-provoking topics directly related to their SOGI journey. For example, the parent in Dyad 4 brought up the term “dick-gay,” a slang term used to refer to a gay man who is attracted to men with a penis. This led the dyad to an open and frank discussion of sexuality, attraction, and intimacy; and provided the youth with a space to unpack some concerns related to his SOGI journey. The parent in Dyad 2 brought up various SOGI-specific topics, such as the youth’s partner’s drag show, gender-neutral pronouns, and Pride celebrations, which led to the youth sharing information and educating the parent about these SOGI-specific aspects of her experience. The parent participants in Dyads 3 - 153 6 openly discussed many SOGI-specific topics, such as clothing and binders, hormone therapy, intimacy, the intersection of sexual orientation and gender identity, and gender-affirming surgery, with the youth. Youth participants simultaneously contributed to a context of speakability by showing a willingness to answer their parents’ questions and patience with their parents’ level of understanding regarding SOGI. Revisiting the Past. Most of the dyads spent time revisiting the past in order to make sense of the youth’s SOGI construction processes. In Dyad 2, for instance, Sue asked Sydney if past behaviors, such as “unfriending” her on Facebook were caused by Sydney’s need at the time to maintain privacy due to concerns around her sexual orientation. Sydney clarified for Sue that the unfriending was not due to sexual orientation concerns; rather, it was a time in Sydney’s life when she had wanted to assert her independence from her parents and spend more time engaging with her peer group. In Dyad 3, Nick and Melissa discussed Nick’s coming out in the warm-up interview. They shared with the interviewers how Nick’s father had struggled to accept Nick’s initial SOGI disclosure. This brought tears to Melissa’s eyes and provided the dyad with an opportunity to revisit and reprocess this past struggle. In Dyads 4, 5, and 6, the youth and parent revisited several pre-coming-out situations to generate further understanding around the youth’s SOGI. For example, in Dyad 4, Sean brought up how, when he was a child, he thought he could magically switch genders when he sneezed, and Angie added that Sean “didn’t see gender” as a child. In Dyad 5, Michael talked about his regrets and told Sarah he wished he would have known about her SOGI journey earlier so he could have provided her with gender-affirming support at an earlier stage of her development. Sarah responded by saying that she too had regrets and wishes she had also been able to recognize what was going on for her at the time. In Dyad 6, Jason described various events from his childhood that had been confusing for him at 154 the time, and Julie helped Jason make sense of these past events. Additionally, Julie wanted to know why Jason had waited so long to come out to her and used the conversation as an opportunity to ask him if he had thought she might reject him. One youth shared their internal processes in the video recall interview about how far their relationship has come with their parent since they first came out. I feel like, especially like thinking back to that first experience of coming out and how scared and worried I was in that moment, that we can now kind of joke about it and laugh about it a bit. It’s kind of a nice little, it’s kind of, all these years later, how far things have come, like that idea of going back to your past self, and patting them on the shoulder and saying it’ll all work out, you’ll get to, you’ll get to where you want to be. For some dyads, revisiting the past also meant looking back at the youth’s SOGI-label acquisition process, and understanding how individual experiences of SOGI do not fit neatly into pre-conceived identity categories. Additionally, when societal representation was lacking, it was much harder for the youth to find themselves in SOGI categories. For example, Sarah (Dyad 5) described how her original understanding of the category “trans” led her to assume she could not be trans as she was also experiencing attraction toward women. Jason in Dyad 6 reported that he didn’t know he could be trans as the only transgender person he knew of identified as a girl. Jason: Yeah. I didn’t know I could be trans. Julie: Yes, I suppose again, you didn’t have that blueprint of someone in the family, so you go Oh that’s an option, that’s on the table. Jason: The only trans person I knew of was Jazz Jennings. And she was a trans girl, so I thought there were only trans girls in the world. I didn’t know you could be a trans guy. Julie: Oh really? 155 Jason: Yeah Julie: As a little kid you didn’t even… Jason: I didn’t even, it did not register. Julie: It didn’t transfer. Jason: No, it did not register, so I was like no that’s not something I can do. It didn’t even occur to me, so it was like it doesn’t make sense, so I’m just not gonna think about it. Integrating Partners. In Dyads 1, 2, 3, and 5, the youth reported having a partner with whom they were currently in a romantic relationship. Parents and youth in these dyads openly discussed the youth’s partner (See Table 4.3). Parents had been getting to know the youth’s partner, and in some cases, they were engaging in joint activities with the partner (i.e., Dyads 1-3; See Table 4.3) and even the partner’s family (e.g., Dyad 1). For the parent participants, fostering a relationship with their youth’s partner appeared to be an effortless process. By affirming the youth’s partner these parents were indirectly affirming their youth’s SOGI-status. Mutual Support and Empathy. Mutual support and empathy were evident across all of the dyads (see Table 4.3) and contributed significantly toward both the relationship and SOGI project. Parents and youth alike seemed to have a deep understanding of each other’s struggles combined with a desire to support one another with these struggles. Several youth, for example, empathized with their parents’ challenges related to coming out to others or understanding SOGI issues. One example of a youth’s empathy and desire to support their parent is taken from the youth’s video recall interview: I see [my mother] as this person who has taken care of me my whole life, and I’m getting to an age where I can like take care of her too. Because she’s my emotional support, but 156 I’m her emotional support and it has to be balanced. Like I can’t just unload everything on her and then go, OK cool, bye. One example of a parent’s empathy is illuminated in the following excerpt from the video recall interview where the parent describes what it must have felt like for the youth to come out to their peers: So, there I was thinking oh my god, in school they must have really struggled with friends cause. . . it’s hard to get another [young person’s] attention to say this is the biggest thing in my life I’m about to tell you and here it is. And they don’t sit still and go OK, mm-hm, and tell me more. They want to be seen and heard right, like anybody, and tell their story. Humor. There is evidence for the use of humor across all 6 dyads. From a shared smile to the telling of humorous stories from the past, all the dyads used humor as a means of connecting. Humor was also used as a means of broaching anxiety-provoking topics and processing painful or confusing moments from the past. A few dyads noted that it is helpful to be able to look back on past struggles with humor and a lighter perspective, which was an indicator to them that they have overcome challenging obstacles to arrive where they are now. Sue (Dyad 2) said in her video recall interview that Sydney “makes me laugh all the time. . . yeah, we laugh a lot when we talk.” Conversely, in one dyad, the parent noted that they and their youth laugh a lot together and pointed out that humor, while beneficial, might also be used by the youth to cover up painful thoughts and feelings. The parent stated: “. . .it helps to laugh about stuff, it definitely breaks the anxiety for [youth], but it also covers it up.” Mutual Gratitude. All of the parent and youth participants expressed gratitude for one another. Parent participants were highly affirming of the youth. They appeared to “prize” the 157 youth and authentically enjoy spending time with them. For example, Melissa spoke of her admiration for Nick several times during data collection. She said: I’m still in awe of Nick. I have so much admiration for my son, I don’t know anyone who at that age would have put themselves out there like that, and it appeared he was confident when he spoke about it to us, and he didn’t even bat an eye apparently when he told his friends. Here I am like it or not. . . I am so proud of him. For so many things, not just because he came out, but just for owning his behavior, for owning, just who he is as a human being, I have a lot of, I’m very proud of him. Nick, even while he was asserting his independence from Melissa, noted that he is grateful for her unwavering support and recognized that his name change wouldn’t have happened without Melissa’s tenacity. Sue, in Dyad 2, said repeatedly that she enjoys spending time with her daughter, Sydney. When asked what it means for her to spend time with Sydney, Sue said, “I get along with her great, and I love her company, and she makes me laugh. Yeah, she’s just a great kid.” Sydney reflected on the importance of her relationship with Sue in the video recall interview, saying: Right now, I’m mostly feeling like since I have become more independent over the last couple of years, that I want to spend more time with her (Sue) because she’s spent the last 20 years raising me, so I don’t wanna cut that off, it’s a relationship I value, and it’s important for me. In Dyad 5, Michael brought up a biblical reference that affirmed Sarah’s SOGI-status. He said: 158 I admire you. I think what I’ve learned is. . . it’s not about understanding – that’s not to say that I don’t want to understand or that I don’t understand, but I’m not you and so I can’t pretend to understand everything. Additionally, Michael noted that he was feeling grateful and “very privileged” that Sarah trusts him enough to share intimate details of her life, and is proud of her adeptness in articulating the grey areas of sexual orientation and gender identity. After viewing the section of the video-recorded conversation where Sarah describes how, despite the challenges, she is happy with whom she is, regardless of labels, Michael said: Yeah so, the ability to receive one another as who the other person is, right, with an open mind, so I’m very grateful that Sarah shared that with me, in terms of her ability to receive herself, in a way that’s true to who she is, and not defined by labels or categories or terms. . . I think that she is very articulate. . . but this is not something we talk about often. So, to hear her be articulate about her identity and how she understands her identity, that made me proud. In turn, Sarah reported that she is grateful for Michael’s consistent support, and his ability to gradually deepen his understanding of her unique experience. Jason and Julie in Dyad 6 both expressed deep gratitude for their relationship. Jason said, “I actually enjoy spending time with her. And if she wants me to go to the grocery store, I’m totally ready to. No relationship is easy, but it’s definitely a relationship that comes naturally to both of us.” Jason continued to express gratitude for his relationship with Julie during the telephone monitoring period, and he recognized that they have a special relationship. He said, “a lot of friends would dread going on hike and wouldn’t enjoy it. I look forward to it.” When asked to share feedback regarding his experience participating in the study, Jason said, “It’s been a really cool experience for me, I 159 think it helped me realize how good a relationship I have with my mom and I’m even more grateful for it.” Julie mentioned several times during data collection how much she appreciates her relationship with Jason. She said that Jason is very wise, and she feels lucky to be learning from him. Additionally, she said, “We have a lovely time together; I’m so blessed, he’s the coolest most interesting child. So emotionally intelligent. . . we have fascinating conversations.” Hope and Optimism. A strong sense of hope and optimism reverberated through the dyads (See Table 4.3). For most of the dyads (especially Dyads 3-6), there was also a theme of growth through struggle: having faced and overcome challenges with greater strength and wisdom as a result. In Dyad 4, for example, the youth stated that, when he was younger, he experienced racism and was bullied. While this was a horrible experience, one he wouldn’t wish upon anyone, he reported that it helped him to become more resilient when facing SOGI-specific discrimination, such as biphobia and transphobia. This youth also reported that his parent had explicitly taught him that adversity breeds strength, and he had internalized this belief. Another youth reported that it is extremely challenging being trans and that if he had a button to push to make him cis, he’d push it. He quickly added that he is proud of who he is and has a lot of hope for his future. He reported that, if he gives up, it is like allowing transphobia to win. Other youth participants also expressed hope for the future, recognizing that they are feeling much more comfortable with themselves than they were before coming out. They also reported feeling ready for new challenges that will inevitably arise. One youth reported that he was “still figuring a lot of stuff out but on the right path.” Another youth expressed how amazing it is to feel “normal”: I’ve described it before as being amazing but in the most normal way. Like, all these things because they just feel normal, um. Which I think kind of surprised me because when I was wanting hormones and wanting top surgery, I was like this is going to be life changing, I’m 160 gonna feel amazing, and it does, but it’s because it’s so normal. It’s just how it’s supposed to be, which is interesting because I think I expected it to feel right, but I didn’t expect how normal it is. One youth stated in the telephone monitoring that, while they were in an incredible amount of pain following gender-affirming surgery, they were already feeling more connected to themself, and consequently more hopeful about the future. This youth reflected on how they have moved from a place of fear of losing their family to one where family members will stand up and defend them: I was in a pretty bad spot when I first came out. I had a lot of anxieties, I was worried that, I mean I’d already been pretty distant and dissociative for a very long time. I didn’t have as close a connection with my family, but I was afraid that I would lose them; I was worried that I would lose my friends, worried that I would have trouble finding work, etcetera. Um, and I won’t say it’s been easy, it’s been an incredibly challenging few years, but at the same time it’s definitely been the most rewarding. While I’ve definitely been caught off guard with how difficult things can be, even though I hadn’t had the highest expectations, there’s also been those moments where I’ve been caught off guard by how positive things can be. . . sort of like looking back on your past experiences and saying, well I wouldn’t be where I am now if not for those other things. I think that’s also part of it, is the recognition that, not just that I wouldn’t be where I am now, but I wouldn’t be who I am now, kind of like, I’m stronger now for these things, I’m a better person now I think than I was before, stuff like that. All of the parent participants expressed a sense of hope and optimism for the future of their youth. Four of the parents described how they had noticed the youth developing more self-161 confidence since they first came out. One parent stated that, before coming out and expressing their gender identity, the youth would stay in their room and not talk to anyone. Now, the parent said, the youth excels in school, maintains an active social life, and is generally “thriving.” Another parent noted that her optimism is stronger than her fears, saying: I have days when I panic they are not succeeding, they’re not gonna fly, but I have more of the time when I feel optimistic and so proud, when they’re motivated and excited to do something, and putting energy into something, and when they are out and proud, I feel proud of them. Yeah, more of the time I feel excited and happy and optimistic than I do feel worried. One parent reported that, while coming out has been challenging, it has also led her youth to become the extraordinary person they are – someone who is courageous and inspiring. (Coming out) was hard for them, and yeah, it makes me sad, but you know, adversity makes people stronger, you know, I also think that a lot with them, everything they go through it’s making them this cool person that they are now. . . They have to be who they are. . .by being brave, they provide people around them with that courage too, to be themselves. Being real about being trans cracked them open to being just real about who they are and I hope that people see that and also want to be their authentic selves. Another parent reflected on how the struggle has been a teacher and led to a deeper sense of meaning in her life: Often there was pain in survival mode – you have to do something with it after, pain pushes you until inspiration holds, it’s a quote. We (parent and youth) have had more conversations about personal development on a spiritual level, how your soul is trying to teach you something, and what good can this teach you. 162 Finally, one parent expressed how, after her child came out to her, she discovered parts of herself she hadn’t realized existed: When I had him and up until he was trans, it never really occurred to me that I would ever be having this conversation with anyone, so it’s interesting, it’s an interesting journey for me because I’ve learned a lot. I’ve learned a lot about myself in that um I’m a lot more accepting than I thought I was. Like, I didn’t know that about myself, I didn’t know that I, I guess because I never really thought about it so now, I’m in this position where I think about it all the time. Um, I realize oh, you know what, this is a good, this is a good side of you, a good part. Advocacy and a Desire to Help Others. Most of the parents reported that they hoped others could learn from their experiences and recognized that, by coming out to others on behalf of their youth, they are also educating others about diversity in society and paving the way for other SGM youth and their parents. Melissa (Dyad 3), for example, reported that she was interested in participating in this research study because her journey with her son has been wonderful, and “it would be nice if information went out to other parents to help youth transition and be who they are without feeling judged.” She said, “Nick is doing his best to adapt, and I think it is our job not just as parents, but society, to adapt with them, not to pass judgment, try to fix it, or blame somebody.” Julie (Dyad 6) reported that she is actively involved in a group that offers support to SGM individuals in her city, saying that she enjoys helping families who are at an earlier stage in their SOGI journey. Youth also wanted to “give back” what they have learned from their SOGI experiences to others. Sean (Dyad 4), for example, spoke about how he never had a “bi crisis” when he first came out, but he recognizes that other youth his age struggle a lot 163 with their SOGI, and he would like to help his peers by leading a GSA club at his school. He said: I have to remind myself that not everybody is like that not everybody can go Oh, this is what I like, let’s continue. It becomes this thing that they need to hide and like layer over with things, and I feel bad, and that’s why I kind of want to . . . run the GSA myself. . .I never thought of myself as much of a leader, but now that it is something that I actually care about, I could definitely be a leader, because it’s really more something that I know a lot about, and it’s something that I care about. Similarly, Nick (Dyad 3) said he finds it very rewarding to help friends with their SOGI-specific struggles and witness them becoming more comfortable with themselves. During the telephone monitoring period, Nick told the interviewer that, since taking part in the study he has been having more conversations about identity with peers, and that it continues to be rewarding for him to help others who are struggling to understand or accept aspects of their identity. Sarah, in Dyad 5, expressed an urge to help her younger sibling with their SOGI journey. Finally, Jason, in Dyad 6 shared with Julie that he had recently donated his binders to a younger youth without parental support who had recently come out as trans. Jason also reported that, in the future, he wants to work in a profession in which he is able to use his lived experience to help SGM youth. Concluding Comments Cross-case analysis illuminated two major themes permeating the six cases: relationship and identity. Identity processes related to the youth’s sexual orientation and/or gender identity (i.e., SOGI projects) were embedded within an overarching relationship project. Some of the SOGI-relevant action processes were explicitly related to the youth’s SOGI construction whereas others were more implicitly related. Notably, the youth in each of the dyads, even when they 164 were pushing away or avoiding their parent, were highly aware of the importance of their parent’s support in their SOGI journey. Parents were also aware of the importance of their support for their youth, with one mother stating that her child would not be alive today if it hadn’t been for her support. Key Assertions The following key assertions represent summaries of the primary researcher’s learning from the individual and cross-case findings. Key Assertion #1. Each parent-youth dyad appeared to have a mutually supportive relationship prior to the youth’s initial SOGI disclosure or coming out. The relationship provided a resource for the dyad when they embarked on their SOGI project. Relational skills such as active listening, responsiveness, mutual empathy, and humor had been established prior to the youth’s coming out and could be readily accessed following the youth’s disclosure. Key Assertion #2. The youth’s initial SOGI disclosure was the beginning of a joint parent-youth project – the SOGI project – that included many different actions that coalesced around affirming and supporting the youth in their SOGI. The SOGI-specific action processes were not embedded within the relationship project in a static way. Rather, SOGI-affirming action appeared to be an impetus for relational growth and dynamism. Key Assertion #3. The parents’ SOGI-specific support affirmed the youth’s identity and allowed the youth to share more of themselves. The dyadic sense of openness or speakability facilitated the negotiation of meaning around SOGI-specific topics, such as sex and intimacy, which are potentially anxiety-provoking and shame-inducing. Key Assertion #4. One prominent theme across data analysis was the need to re-visit the past. For some participants, discussing the past occurred in the dyadic context; however, for others, it 165 occurred during individual interviewing (e.g., during the video-recall interview). Thus, it appears that, given the nature of SOGI disclosures, some time may be needed for these dyads to process and repair unfinished business or relational ruptures that occurred prior to the youth’s initial coming out. Key Assertion #5. Some parents chose to share more of their process than others. Parental responses involved a tension between withholding and sharing their struggles related to SOGI; that is, parents wanted to protect the youth from any stress they (the parents) might be encountering related to the youth’s SOGI, but they also wanted to authentically share some of their struggles. When parents were able to be open with their youth about their struggles, it appeared to help the parents with their own process; to see that the youth “responded well” to their disclosure, and it may have facilitated connection. Key Assertion #6. Most participating parents appear to have made a substantial amount of meaning out of the SOGI-related experiences, and consequently, the parents have experienced identity growth and change, which affected their relationship with the youth. After the youth’s initial SOGI disclosure, parents not only solidified their identity as a loving and supportive parent; but they also developed a novel identity as the parent of a youth with a minority SOGI-status (in a cis- and heteronormative context). The parents displayed humility, especially in dyads where they were revisiting the past and acknowledge mistakes they had made. There was a willingness of parents to show a lack of understanding and an openness to learning from the youth. 166 Chapter 5: Discussion The primary aim of this study was to investigate relational processes between SGM youth and their parents to gain a better understanding of joint actions and projects pertinent to the youth’s SOGI construction process. This chapter discusses the findings in relation to the scholarly literature and highlights some unique contributions of the present study. It also points out the strengths and limitations of this study and suggests possible avenues for future research. Summary of the Research Problem While the sociocultural context surrounding SGM individuals in Canada has improved in recent decades, SGM youth continue to face stigma and discrimination, and a lack of authentic and positive representation in the media, undermining their ability to achieve their unique potentials in life (e.g., Kelleher, 2009). Research consistently indicates that parental support is a strong predictor of adjustment for SGM youth and post-disclosure parenting plays a significant role in the future health and well-being of these youth (e.g., Goodrich & Gilbride, 2010; Mills‐Koonce et al., 2018; Ryan, 2009, 2010). There is, however, a dearth of research on the relational experiences unfolding in real time between SGM youth and supportive parents following the youth’s disclosure of a minority SOGI-status. Summary of the Findings This study examined SOGI-related conversations in six parent-youth dyads using the Action Project Method (A-PM), a systematic method for collecting and analyzing data on individual and joint action processes grounded in Contextual Action Theory (CAT). Results indicate that youth SOGI construction, including the coming out process, is (at least partially) relational, socially meaningful, ongoing, dynamic, and goal-oriented. Parent participants appeared to play an important role in the youth’s SOGI construction process not only by 167 providing a supportive and affirming context for the youth’s developing identity articulation but also by acting as co-agents in the youth’s SOGI construction process. Moreover, there is some indication that the youth’s coming out process may have contributed to relational growth between the youth and parent. Individual case analysis revealed a joint project for each dyad revolving around relationship maintenance and enhancement. The relationship project served as the ground for SOGI-related conversations between all of the youth and parents. Cross-case analysis revealed a superordinate relationship project with a theme of active relational engagement and a subordinate SOGI project for each of the six dyads. The joint actions related to the youth’s coming out process and gender-affirmation process were embedded in the SOGI project. The interwoven relationship and SOGI projects appeared to be growing and changing for each dyad throughout their involvement in the study. Youth, by sharing their unique SOGI experiences with the parent, articulated their sense of SOGI awareness at various times. The parent’s active engagement in the youth’s developing sense of identity was critical, as it paved the way for continued disclosures, reflections, negotiations of meaning, and subsequent identity articulations by the youth; all of which occurred in a developing relational context. The youth’s sense of agency was challenged and affirmed in the relationship with their parent and cannot be separated from the relational context from which it has grown. The youth’s developing agency and relational skills contributed to further reflection and articulation of their unique understanding of their identity, that is, in other relational contexts. 168 Contributions to the Literature The following section outlines some of the unique contributions that this study makes to the area of SOGI construction within the context of parent-youth relationships. Additionally, I discuss unique findings in the areas of parental acceptance, relationship rupture and repair, social meaning-making, imagining future selves, resilience, and stigma management. SOGI Construction Within a Parent-Youth Relationship. The youth in the present study reported feeling supported and affirmed by their parents, and they reported that their parents’ support was integral to their development and well-being. Thus, this study illustrates previous findings indicating that parental support increases positive outcomes for SGM youth (e.g., Katz-Wise et al., 2016; McConnell et al., 2016; Mills-Koonce et al., 2018; Newcomb et al., 2019; Ryan, 2009; 2010). This research adds to the literature on parental support by closely examining relationship processes as they occur in actual conversations between SGM youth and their parents, thereby providing a more nuanced perspective on complex relational processes that contribute to the youth’s identity construction. Whereas most research studies provide a singular perspective on youth SOGI construction from either the youth’s or parent’s perspective at one time, this study viewed the dyadic action as the unit of analysis and investigated the action between parents and youth as it unfolded over time; with a specific focus on joint actions related to the youth’s SOGI construction. The results of the present study indicate that the youth’s ability to articulate their unique sense of SOGI was facilitated by their family context. In contrast, past research indicated that resilience among transgender youth is associated with family support and the youth’s ability to articulate their sense of identity (Singh et al., 2014) and that SGM youth self-definition and self-acceptance are associated with greater resilience (Matsuno & Israel, 2018). The present study 169 offered a more complex understanding of the interrelationship of identity articulation, family support and SGM youth well-being or resilience. Specifically, findings indicate that parental support provided a safe context for the youth’s articulating and re-articulating of their developing identity over time. Having a mutually empathic space within which to express their developing sense of self was reported by both youth and parent participants to be highly beneficial to the youth’s development and well-being. These findings, therefore, add to the research reported above by revealing that youth self-definition is neither static nor solitary; rather, it is constructed over time in relational contexts, such as the parent-youth relationship. Results from the present study uncovered a co-constructive process where youth participants, within the context of their relationship with a supportive parent, were able to (1) express their unique sense of SOGI; (2) see their SOGI understandings integrated, affirmed, and reflected by their parents; (3) negotiate further meaning through mutual empathy, reflection, and dialogue; and (4) augment specific understanding of their SOGI and general self-understanding. Concomitantly, the parent participants had the opportunity to see their identity reflected by the youth. The understanding for both parents and youth went beyond mere SOGI labels; that is, it went beyond: “I am this SOGI-status” to “I am (or You are from the parent’s perspective) this person with multiple parts that make up a whole which is unique, interesting, and worthy of love. Now that I understand (and feel affirmed in understanding) these parts of myself (i.e., my SOGI), I can better understand myself as a whole person and have more freedom to pursue what is important to me in my life.” This was confirmed by participants who reported that, after being able to express their unique SOGI, they were able to become more self-confident and less anxious or concerned about coming out to others. 170 Stage-dependent models of SOGI development (e.g., Cass, 1979) failed to recognize the inherently context-dependent nature of coming out. More recent theoretical developments view coming out as a continuous developmental process of disclosing to different people in different contexts, such as the family or workplace (e.g., Manning, 2015; Fassinger, 2017). However, many psychological models of development continue to view identity construction as an interior or individual process (Comstock & Qin, 2005). CAT recognizes that human action occurs within a relational-cultural context, even when these actions appear to be solitary. In the present study, for example, we found SOGI-specific actions to be relational and goal-directed, where participants were constructing, articulating, and acting on a sense of identity through conversations and relational experiences. In the absence of a relational-cultural context, the youth’s self-understanding and expression thereof would appear to be meaningless. Moving Beyond Acceptance versus Rejection: Mutual Empathy and Love. In the scholarly literature, the words acceptance and rejection are often used to describe a parental response to a youth’s SOGI disclosure (e.g., Pariseau et al., 2019). However, the parents in the present study reported never having questioned their love, acceptance, or support for their child. It appeared that the concepts of rejection or acceptance were irrelevant for these parents, rendered moot by their pre-existing values. These parents wanted to do what was best to support their child in their SOGI journey, and they drew on internal resources, such as past experiences with racism, perspective-taking, and reminding oneself of one’s values; and external resources, such as informative books, and health professionals, to provide that support. All of the parents displayed empathy for their youth’s SOGI experiences. Several of the parents shared how they have been learning from the youth participant, not only about SOGI but also about life in general. Findings indicate that humility was a characteristic shared by most of the parents in the 171 study – an attitude of not knowing what is best for the youth combined with a willingness to negotiate, understand, and move forward on a growth-promoting path. Youth participants, in turn, showed empathy for their parents regarding their adaptation process, as well as other areas of their parent's life, such as work and relationships. Thus, the youth played an important role in the relational process of mutual empathy and SOGI-specific understanding. An Opportunity for Relational Repair. The findings of the present study point to the importance of the parent-youth context as a place for processing and better understanding SOGI experiences from the past. Decades of research on attachment theory have confirmed the importance of relationships in the development of a secure sense of self in the world; especially relationships with one’s primary caregiver (e.g., Cassidy, 2008). Attachment theorists often speak of relationship rupture and repair (e.g., Diamond et al., 2016). Youth participants in the current study chose to wait for months or years before sharing their SOGI understandings with a parent. As Torkelson (2012) notes, the youth’s concealment, while understandable given the societal context, may cause a rupture in relationships between SGM youth and their parents. Several dyads in this study used the video-recorded conversation as an opportunity to revisit and make sense of the past and the findings indicate that having a conversation about the past was beneficial for some of the youth and parent participants. For example, it offered the youth a chance to express their past experiences (e.g., what their struggles, needs, or concerns were before they came out) in the context of a SOGI-affirming relationship. Parent participants who opened up to their youth about their own SOGI-specific struggles reported the youth responded well to their disclosure, which may have facilitated a stronger connection in the present. A Social Meaning-Making Process. This study also provided insight into the meaning-making process surrounding SOGI construction. While previous research has viewed SOGI 172 development as an interior, personal process (Comstock & Qin, 2005), data analysis revealed that a lack of cultural and linguistic representation for lived experiences of SOGI necessitates a social meaning-making process. However, this process is impeded by restrictive social norms, such as heteronormativity and cisnormativity, which make it especially challenging for children and youth to express their experience of SOGI, precluding negotiation of meaning around these experiences. Youth who do not see themselves represented in society – as was the case with some of the participants in the present study – may begin to believe that they cannot express their identity or identities. By bringing their identity wonderings into the relational space with their parents, youth participants in this study were able to develop their nascent self-understandings into more differentiated and meaningful identifications. Findings from the present study indicate that parents went through their own unique process of developing meaning around their child’s SOGI-related experiences. Before coming out to their parent, the youth had internalized and guarded their identity-related wonderings. After coming out, the youth worked hard to make sense of their identity in their relationship with their parent (and others, such as peers, siblings, or romantic partners). The parents’ pathway toward understanding had a different trajectory. After the youth came out to them, parents made sure they were sending messages of support and acceptance while internally dealing with feelings such as surprise, fear, and uncertainty. Consequently, the parents’ social meaning-making process related to the youth’s identity was put on hold at least in the parent-youth relational context. Imagining the Future with their Parents: Co-constructing Possible Selves. In the present study, we also found social meaning-making processes occurring in dyadic conversations about the youth’s future. These conversations with parents provided an opportunity for the youth 173 participants to imagine possible future selves, an important process in identity construction (Marshall et al., 2008) that may be impeded by knowledge of societal discrimination against SGM youth (Katz-Wise et al., 2017a). Markus and Nurius (1986) first conceptualized possible selves as representing “individuals' ideas of what they might become, what they would like to become, and what they are afraid of becoming” (p. 954). In many of the dyadic conversations from the present study, youth and parents discussed the youth’s plans regarding major life domains. Youth shared their ideas regarding what their life might look like in the future: what kind of career they might enjoy, where they might want to live, and what their relationships might look like. The parent-youth SOGI-affirming project facilitated the youth’s developing image of their future self – a future that aligns more with their hopes than with their fears. For example, the youth in Dyad 4, shared with his parent that he couldn’t see himself having an intimate relationship in the city where they live; however, after discussing this with his parent he realized that he could envision finding a romantic partner in a larger city. Having space to imagine their future selves is particularly important for SGM youth, who face minority stress and negative societal expectations, which can contribute to a sense of hopelessness regarding the future (Hirsch et al., 2017) and lead to imagining “dreaded possible selves” based on “categories made salient by the individual’s particular sociocultural and historical context” (Markus & Nurius, p. 954). By imagining possible selves with their parents, SGM youth have an opportunity to see beyond restrictive cultural ideas of what life might be like for SGM individuals. Resilience and Stigma Management. SOGI scholars have lamented the narrative of risk surrounding SGM youth and called for research that recognizes the strength and resilience of all SGM individuals (Colpitts & Gahagan, 2016; Domínguez et al., 2015). The present study found positive actions or relationship enhancers in SGM youth-parent dyads, such as speakability, 174 mutual empathy, humor, and gratitude, which contributed to the SOGI project. Additionally, some participants reported that, by engaging with one another on the youth’s SOGI journey, the parent-youth relationship became stronger and more authentic. In contrast, most studies to date have found correlations between SGM resilience and individual variables such as emotional openness, hope and optimism (e.g., Grossman et al., 2011; Kwon, 2013). Prominent scholars have also used survey data to report on the positive aspects associated with self-identifying as a sexual minority person (Riggle et al., 2008) or as a transgender person (Riggle et al., 2011). This study adds to the literature by showing how unfolding action processes of the parent-youth relationship can be integral to a youth’s positive SOGI construction. This study provides insight into the parent-youth relationship as a resource for dealing with SOGI-specific stress. While the minority stress model (Meyer, 2003) is a useful explanatory framework for understanding the negative effects of social stigma, it focuses on intrapersonal factors, such as expectations of rejection and internalized heterosexism, as primary mediators of social stress for SGM individuals (Riggs & Treharne, 2017). Consequently, less attention is given to social or contextual factors, such as cis- and heteronormative assumptions in society, that are responsible for the stigma-related stress that SGM individuals experience. In addition, less attention is given to the unique strengths associated with being an SGM, such as the development of courage to persevere in the face of social stigma (Mohr & Sarno, 2016). Recognizing the family as a primary means of socialization (e.g., McGoldrick & Shibusawa, 2012), the present research is important as it investigates subtle social processes that may enhance the youth’s and parents’ ability to manage stigma-related stress. Findings indicate that each dyad had a firm relational foundation, and specific aspects of the relationship, such as mutual empathy, speakability, humor, and active engagement facilitated coping with SOGI-175 specific challenges and stigma. Various strategies were used to deal with coming out. For example, some participants reported confidently disclosing to others in a concise and “matter-of-fact” way; some reminded themselves that most people are supportive and are mainly concerned with their own business; and some (e.g., the parent from Dyad 1) stated that “it’s (i.e., the youth’s SOGI-status) nobody’s business.” All of the parent participants reported that they had come out to others on the youth’s behalf, and some of the parents reported that they were primarily responsible for disclosing the youth’s SOGI status to relatives and close family friends. Past research has indicated that for parental support to be effective for sexual minority youth, it needs to be specifically related to the youth’s sexuality (Doty et al., 2010). The action process of a parent not only affirming their youth’s identity but also taking the extra step of affirming that identity to others on the youth’s behalf, can be described as SOGI-specific support. Implications for Counselling Practice These cases may be of assistance to counsellors who work with SGM youth and their parents. While generalization to a larger population is not the goal with case-study research such as this, it is possible to gain a deeper understanding and awareness of the processes engaged in by some youth and parents. Case study research is important as it highlights the uniqueness of each case, and knowledge gleaned from case studies is paramount when developing expertise in an area such as counselling (Flyvbjerg, 2006). As the individual case analysis illuminates, each dyad’s SOGI journey was unique, and each parent-youth dyad made sense of their SOGI-related experiences in their own idiosyncratic way. For example, one youth participant reported that the relationship with their parent improved when they sensed that their parent’s understanding of their unique experience was based on careful listening to them rather than on pre-existing assumptions. This is a reminder for counsellors and other helping professionals to listen carefully 176 to their clients in order to understand their personal SOGI-related experiencing. It is also a caveat that identity labels, while useful, can be restrictive and impede connection, especially if they lead to presumptions about a person’s identity. With a contextually based framework for helping, counsellors can assist clients in developing greater awareness of the potential limits of SOGI categories, normalize confusion around identity labelling, and acquire more flexible and relationally embedded understandings of SOGI (Fassinger, 2017). Additionally, counsellors play an important role in listening to the needs of unsupportive parents and, where appropriate, helping these parents to acquire the skills needed to authentically listen to and affirm their child’s SOGI-status. Given its holistic and integrative nature, CAT aligns well with the values of counselling psychology (Young et al., 2021) and has shown promise as a framework for counselling (Domene et al., 2015). The findings indicate that the A-PM may have functioned as a supportive intervention for some participants in this study. First, having a parent who was willing to take part in the present study, and a space dedicated to discussing SOGI-related topics implied that those aspects of the youth’s identity are important and consequently may have been beneficial for youth participants. Second, the narratives that participants received outlining their actions and projects may have helped them to clarify their individual and joint goals. One participant, for example, reported that they became more intentional regarding their relationship with their parent after receiving the narrative. Third, the video-recorded conversation offered dyads an opportunity to discuss SOGI-related experiences more explicitly. For example, several parents reported hesitancy around sharing their SOGI-related challenges with the youth, such as coming out to others, and fears related to medical interventions. These parents reported that the video-recorded conversation with their youth provided them with an opportunity to discuss sensitive 177 aspects of their experience with the youth, especially regarding the past. Fourth, the video recall interview and telephone monitoring provided participants with a chance to elaborate on their SOGI-related experiences in a supportive and affirming context. Notably, most of the parents in the study shared a substantial amount of their experience with the researcher, with many of the telephone monitoring calls being approximately one hour in length. Finally, the research method provided a context for the youth to reflect on what was going on in their life thereby offering a space for greater self-understanding. For example, by engaging in the video recall interview and telephone monitoring interviews, the youth participants were also engaged in identity-forming actions by articulating who they are in their relationship with their parents. Viewing themselves on a screen in a conversation with their parent and describing to the researcher how they related to their parents in that conversation, was an opportunity to formulate a clearer idea of who they are. The video recall interview may facilitate a process of identity affirmation and construction that individuals typically don’t get a chance to explicitly engage in. Not only were they saying, ‘This is who I am’; they were also saying, ‘In this video clip, I am telling my parent that this is who I am’, thereby creating a meta-perspective from which to view their action and facilitating a sense of agency (R. A. Young, personal communication, October, 2020). Identity as a Fixed and Fluid Process Framing SOGI construction from a contextual action theoretical perspective may aid counsellors in avoiding potential pitfalls associated with extreme social construction positions that fail to account for the role of agency in human development and extreme essentialist positions that overlook the complex relational-cultural nature of human development (Fassinger, 2017; Tolman & Diamond, 2014). Young and colleagues (2011) note that in counselling psychology an assumption of identity stability has endured, which ignores the paramount role of 178 process in human development, stating: “Process is important because it addresses the question of how identity develops and changes, and accounts for how continuity is maintained. As such process is relevant to counselors” (Young et al., 2011, p.89). CAT finds middle ground between essentialism and social constructionism “. . . by recognizing the mid- and long-term persistence of one’s identity while at the same time acknowledging that there are ongoing processes in constructing identity” (Young, 2011, p. 90). Thus, from a CAT perspective, identity is not entirely internal and fixed, nor is it entirely fleeting, depending on shifting relational cultural contexts. In the present study, we collected data on SOGI-specific goal-oriented action processes, which included both internal (thoughts and feelings) and external (social engagement) steering of the action. Consequently, we were reporting on identity-related action processes as they unfold within a dynamic relational context (Marshall et al., 2021); diving into the grey area between essentialism and social constructionism to demonstrate the role of human agency in the relational-cultural construction of identity. The literature review in Chapter 2 outlined various models of SOGI construction. While many of these models are stage-oriented and focus on the intrapersonal experiences of individuals who identify as a sexual minority (e.g., Cass, 1979), there has been a shift toward models that embrace context, fluidity, and leave room for the complex idiosyncratic experiencing related to SOGI construction. Intersectional models, for example, view identity construction as an ongoing process where the meaning of one identity depends on its intersection with others (Crenshaw, 1991; Shields, 2008; Bowleg, 2008). Relational Cultural Theory (RCT; Jordan, 2010) is a life-span framework that illuminates the role of context and relationality in human development and has direct applications for counselling. Breaking from traditional models that emphasize separation and individuation in development, RCT focuses on growth within and 179 toward more complex and enriching relationships. By illuminating the context and jointness of human action, CAT aligns well with models such as RCT. Ruth Fassinger, a prominent counselling psychologist, devised a model of identity enactment for gender-transgressive sexual minorities (2007; 2017). Fassinger’s model encompasses a wide range of individual and contextual factors, such as temporal and cohort influences, ethnicity, disability, geographic location, and socioeconomic status. Fassinger notes that trajectories of identity are enacted in various domains over the life course, such as health, relationships, family, and work. In line with Fassinger’s model, CAT conceptualizes identity as contextually and relationally enacted and the A-PM provides space for each individual to describe their unique understanding of their identity. Furthermore, the present study offers examples of enacted identities in the family domain, which may be relevant to Fassinger’s model. Scholars in counselling psychology describe a paradigm shift undergirding the research informing models of SOGI construction where, instead of generalizing based on a select group of predominantly White gay or lesbian individuals “. . . research incorporates a multiplicity of experiences and contexts, including increased cultural sensitivity as well as more explicit inclusion of bisexual, transgender, and other marginalized identities.” (Bieschke et al., 2008, p. 177). These scholars state that “. . . this new paradigm recognizes that, to fully understand sexual orientation, it must be explored in conjunction with gender, race, ethnicity, religion, class, disability, and other aspects of social or cultural location.” (p.177). Moreover, a recent study by Suen and colleague (2020) indicates that SGM individuals want researchers to acknowledge the fluidity and complexity of their SOGI journeys. The present study is part of this paradigm shift as it sought to recruit and deeply explore the experiences of diverse participants who identify as 180 both sexual and gender minorities, and whose life context was illuminated through their joint action processes. This shift toward more intentional inclusion of participants with diverse identities and complex person-centered understandings of those identities is in line with an intersectional approach (e.g., Bowleg, 2008; Cole, 2009). As mentioned in Chapter 2, intersectional perspectives see individuals as actively engaged in ongoing construction of various identity categories that dynamically intersect in different ways during the individual’s life. In order to capture this fluidity and complexity, qualitative methods are needed that give space for participants to describe their own unique identity-related experiences (Bowleg, 2008; Grzanka & Moradi, 2021). As Cole notes, “categories of identity, difference, and disadvantage are jointly associated with outcomes” (p. 170, 2009) and when researchers examine categories of group membership, such as gender or race, in isolation from one another, they fail to consider how these categories might come together to have a unique and distinctive meaning. In addition to the youth’s diverse sexual orientations and gender identities (e.g., four youth identified as transgender and non-heterosexual), the participants in this study brought with them a wide range of intersecting identities: Four of the participants identified as people of color; two of the participants lived in a rural area; five of the youth participants reported mental health challenges; four of the parent participants were separated or divorced; and three participants identified as Christian. Participant socioeconomic status was middle or upper-middle class, none of the participants disclosed any physical disabilities, and all of the parents had some college-level education. Additionally, the participants were all Canadian nationals and spoke English as their first language (except for one parent who was born in a European country). 181 The intersectional perspective examines complex individual experiencing. CAT and the A-PM challenge us to consider taking an intersectional perspective on understanding the relationship. Culture provides a space for action (Boesch, 2012) where intersecting identities come together and are co-constructed. If we recognize that the family is one mechanism of acculturation, we can view the parent-youth relationship as a space for (or against) action; a co-constructive space where certain types of action – including actions that represent aspects of one’s identity – may or may not be welcome. While CAT and the A-PM cannot account for all of the intersectional complexity occurring in the research context, they address these intersections by looking closely at how they come alive in real-time actions, such as the parent-youth conversation. The action is the culture, and the intersecting layers of identity and difference, privilege and oppression, are at play in the conversation. For each of the youth participants in the present study, sexual orientation and gender identity came together in unique ways, which were illuminated less by the labels participants used to identify themselves with, and more in the ways in which they interacted with the researchers and parent participant. Strengths and Limitations This study adds to the literature on SGM youth development in the context of their relationships with parents by providing an analysis of complex parent-youth relationship processes. Another strength lies in its theoretical framing of SOGI as relational and goal-oriented behavior, and the method used to examine these processes. In a recent review of the literature on LGBTQ qualitative and mixed methods research in counselling psychology, Abreu and colleagues (2022) noted that most of the qualitative studies in this area utilized grounded theory. These scholars, as well as scholars specializing in family research (e.g., Reczek, 2020) 182 recommend using a wider range of qualitative methods to investigate the lives of SGM individuals. In addition to its strengths, there are several limitations with the current study: in particular, with regards to sample size and composition, the authenticity of participant behavior, and generalizability of the results. While the youth participants in the present study were fairly diverse, there was a lack of diversity in the parent sample in terms of SOGI, ethnic and cultural background, socioeconomic status, and religion. All of the parents identified as heterosexual and cisgender, and there was only one male-identified parent. Care was taken to provide a friendly, comfortable, and confidential space for participants; however, having a video-recorded conversation presents a potentially anxiety-provoking situation for them. One parent participant, for example, noted that he was especially aware of the camera during the warm-up and video-recorded conversations, an awareness that might have altered his actions. In addition, demand characteristics, or “the totality of cues and mutual expectations which inhere in a social context…which serve to influence the behavior and/or self-reported experience of the research receiver” (Orne et al., 2000, p. 469) may have influenced the behavior of participants. Since the focus of the study revolved around parent-youth relationships, parent participants in particular may have wanted to demonstrate positive behavior related to their youth’s SOGI journey. Finally, these findings are derived from a small group of self-selected youth and their parents who reported a variety of SOGI-related experiences and are therefore not generalizable. Future Research CAT and the A-PM have been used to investigate parent-youth relationships during the youth’s transition to adulthood (e.g., Young et al., 2008), however, data on participant sexual orientation and gender identity were not collected. To my knowledge, the present study is the 183 first to use the A-PM to examine SOGI-related experiences within a parent-youth relationship. This study employed a modified version of the A-PM to investigate SGM youth relationships with their parents, and future studies could build on this line of research by using the original A-PM. This could be accomplished by having a larger sample and one additional video-recorded conversation at the end of the study (see Marshall et al., 2012 for a description of the original method). Such a study would afford a deeper exploration and understanding of SOGI-related actions and projects in SGM youth-parent relationships. However, it is important to keep in mind the feasibility of undertaking a larger study, as recruitment of parent-youth dyads was challenging and time-consuming for the present study. It may be helpful in future studies to recruit couples with SGM children to investigate parents’ or caregivers’ actions and projects related to supporting SGM children or youth with their SOGI journeys. It would also be helpful to recruit parents who are not supportive of their child’s SOGI journey. These parents may feel more inclined to share their SOGI-specific challenges in the youth’s absence. That is, they won’t feel that they need to censor what they are saying for the youth, and consequently, we may be better able to better understand the process for unsupportive parents. Future studies may also want to examine the SOGI projects between youth and other important people in their lives, such as their siblings, peers, or grandparents. One dyad in the present study self-identified as religious, and it was noteworthy that religion afforded unique strengths for both members of this dyad. It would be helpful to have more research around the intersection of religiosity and SOGI in the context of parent-youth relationships. Furthermore, it may be beneficial to recruit dyads where both members are religious (as was the case in the present study) or where one member of the dyad is religious, and 184 the other is not (or identifies with a different religion). In that way, we could develop a better understanding of the role of religious identification in the coming out process for SGM youth. The present study found positive action processes occurring in the parent-youth dyads which may be worth examining further. Vaughan and Rodriguez (2014) noted that research on SGM individuals would benefit by examining strengths from a positive psychological framework that consists of three main pillars: positive subjective experiences, character strengths, and social institutions (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). Fincham and Beach (2010) argued that a fourth pillar – that of positive relationships – should be added to this list. They asserted the importance of researching relational strengths and positive aspects of relationships that are associated with thriving, not just coping. The present study has contributed insight into positive aspects of growth-promoting relationships between SGM youth and their parents. Several parent participants, for example, reported that they have seen their youth move from places of insecurity, withdrawal, and anxiety to increased well-being, self-confidence, and hope. One parent even reported that her child would not be here today if she hadn’t stepped up to love and support him in the best way she could. Future research might further investigate how some of the positive relational qualities identified in the present study, such as speakability, gratitude and mutual empathy, develop over time and promote growth and thriving for SGM youth and their parents. Conclusion Coming out occurs in ever-changing sociocultural and familial contexts. Thus, it is important to have conceptual frameworks for understanding SOGI without assuming that “coming out,” historically-bound stages or anxiety and stress are essential aspects of the experience. Contextual Action Theory (CAT), an integrative, holistic, and humanistic theory that 185 views SOGI construction as a series of goal-oriented actions which are part of an overarching project, is one such framework. From a contextual action theoretical perspective, coming out was conceptualized as individual and joint action directed toward goals related to understanding, identifying and expressing the youth’s sexual orientation and/or gender identity. For the participants in the present study, coming out also entailed follow-up reflections, where they reflected on the social reception of their disclosures and developed strategies for making SOGI-specific disclosures to others. By articulating and re-articulating the youth’s SOGI-status and SOGI-related experiences, both parent and youth appeared more equipped to understand, identify and express the youth’s SOGI-status and SOGI-related needs. In parallel, they appeared to learn social strategies, such as streamlining SOGI-specific disclosures and managing stigma-related stress. The process of young people coming out to their parents involves much more than announcing identity labels. It is one aspect of a long and complex identity formation process in which the youth is actively engaged. The relationship between the parents and youth in this study was of utmost importance as it provided the testing ground for identity-related thoughts and feelings that the youth had been concealing for months or years. Thus, not only did the relationship offer a place for the youth to be affirmed; it offered stable ground for a potentially anxiety-provoking and socially stigmatizing identity exploration – a way to develop a personalized and unique sense of identity and have that developing sense of identity reflected by the parent. It was as if parents and youth engaged in a joint meaning-making process – a process that does not begin and end with a declaration of the youth’s SOGI-status; rather, one that expands beyond socially-constructed identity labels and moves toward a deeper understanding of 186 the whole person; a process of deconstructing the identity labels offered by society and reconstructing these labels in a more nuanced and idiosyncratic way. Growth-promoting relationships are paramount in healthy identity development and growing toward more complex and satisfying relationships is one of the most challenging and important developmental tasks (Hartling et al., 2004; Jordan, 2010). From a relational-cultural perspective, autonomy or agency is viewed as the process of “increasing one’s ability to represent oneself more fully and authentically in relationships” (Comstock & Qin, 2005, p.42). The youth in this study appeared to be representing themselves – enacting their identities – authentically in their relationships with their parents, which enabled them to discover the challenge and satisfaction of moving toward more complex and satisfying relationships. The youth’s willingness to share their truth with the parent and provide empathy for the parent’s experience was an integral part of the relationship and SOGI-affirming projects. As a result of the youth’s authenticity and empathy, the parents felt affirmed in their identities as responsible yet fallible individuals with an overarching goal of wanting to support and love their child in the best way possible. 187 References Ainsworth, M. S. (1989). Attachments beyond infancy. American Psychologist, 44(4), 709–716. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.4.709 Abreu, R. L., Rosenkrantz, D. E., Ryser-Oatman, J., Rostosky, S. S., & Riggle, E. D. B. (2019). Parental reactions to transgender and gender diverse children: A literature review. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 15(5), 461–485. https://doi.org/10.1080/1550428X.2019.1656132 Abreu, R. L., Townsend, D., Mitchell, Y. L., Ward, J., Audette, L., & Gonzalez, K. A. (2022). LGBTQ qualitative and mixed methods research in counseling psychology: A content analysis. The Counseling Psychologist, 50(5), 708-737. https://doi.org/10.1177/00110000221092481 Alderson, K. G., & Oxenbury, J. M. (2015). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex individuals. In A. Sinacore & F. Ginsberg (eds.), Canadian counselling and counselling psychology in the 21st century (pp. 90–116). MQUP. American Psychiatric Association. (1952). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (1st ed.). American Psychiatric Association. (1980). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (3rd ed.). American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text rev.). American Psychiatric Association, (1973). Homosexuality and sexuality orientation disturbance: Proposed change in DSM-II, 6th printing, page 44. The American Psychiatric Association. APA Document Reference No. 730008. 188 American Psychological Association. (1975). Policy statement on discrimination against homosexuals. American Psychologist, 30, 633. Aquilino, W. S. (1997). From adolescent to young adult: A prospective study of parent-child relations during the transition to adulthood. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 670–686. https://doi.org/10. 2307/353953 Asakura, K. (2016). Paving pathways through the pain: A grounded theory of resilience among lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, and queer youth. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 27(3), 521–536. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12291 Bariola, E., Lyons, A., Leonard, W., Pitts, M., Badcock, P., & Couch, M. (2015). Demographic and psychosocial factors associated with psychological distress and resilience among transgender individuals. American Journal of Public Health, 105(10), 2108–2116. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302763 Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529. Beals, K. P., & Peplau, L. A. (2006). Disclosure patterns within social networks of gay men and lesbians. Journal of Homosexuality, 51(2), 101–120. Benozzo, A., Pizzorno, M. C., Bell, H., & Koro‐Ljungberg, M. (2015). Coming out, but into what? Problematizing discursive variations of revealing the gay self in the workplace. Gender, Work & Organization, 22(3), 292–306. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12081 Bieschke, K. J., Hardy, J. A., Fassinger, R. E., & Croteau, J. M. (2008). Intersecting identities of gender-transgressive sexual minorities: Toward a new paradigm of affirmative psychology. In W. B. Walsh (Ed.), Biennial review of counseling psychology: Vol. 1,2008 (pp. 177–207). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. 189 Bill C-16, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code, 1st Session, 42nd Parliament (2017). Bockting, W., & Coleman, E. (2016). Developmental stages of the transgender coming-out process: Toward an integrated identity. In R. Ettner, S. Monstrey, & E. Coleman (Eds.), Principles of transgender medicine and surgery (pp. 137–158). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. Boesch, E. E. (2012). Culture: Result and condition of action. In Valsiner, J. (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Culture and Psychology (pp. 347-356). Oxford University Press. Boisvert, N. (2021, June 15). Canada's LGBTQ population now 1 million - but hate crimes are rising too: Statistics Canada. CBC News. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/statistics-canada-lgbtq-pride-report-1.6066638 Bouman, W. P., de Vries, A. L. C., & T'Sjoen, G. (2016). Gender dysphoria and gender incongruence: An evolving inter-disciplinary field [Editorial]. International Review of Psychiatry, 28(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.3109/09540261.2016.1125740 Bouris, A., Guilamo-Ramos, V., Pickard, A., Shiu, C., Loosier, P. S., Dittus, P., Gloppen, K., & Michael Waldmiller, J. (2010). A systematic review of parental influences on the health and well-being of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth: Time for a new public health research and practice agenda. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 31(5-6), 273–309. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10935-010-0229-1 Bowleg, L. (2008). When Black + lesbian + woman ≠ Black lesbian woman: The methodological challenges of qualitative and quantitative intersectionality research. Sex Roles, 59(5-6), 312–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008-9400-z 190 Bowring, M. A., & Brewis, J. (2009). Truth and consequences: Managing lesbian and gay identity in the Canadian workplace. Equal Opportunities International, 28(5), 361–377. https://doi.org/10.1108/02610150910964231 Bradford, N. J., & Syed, M. (2019). Transnormativity and transgender identity development: A master narrative approach. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 81(5-6), 306–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-018-0992-7 Bregman, H. R., Malik, N. M., Page, M. J. L., Makynen, E., & Lindahl, K. M. (2013). Identity profiles in lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth: The role of family influences. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 417–430. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10964-012-9798-z Budge, S. L., Adelson, J. L., & Howard, K. A. S. (2013). Anxiety and depression in transgender individuals: The roles of transition status, loss, social support, and coping. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 81(3), 545–557. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031774 Canadian Psychological Association. (2010). Gender identity in adolescents and adults. https://www.cpa.ca/aboutcpa/policystatements/#Gender_Identity Canadian Psychological Association. (2016). Policy and position statements. http://www.cpa.ca/aboutcpa/policystatements/ Carmel, T. C., & Erickson-Schroth, L. (2016). Mental health and the transgender population. Psychiatric Annals, 46(6), 346–349. https://doi.org/10.3928/00485713-20160419-02 Cass, V. C. (1979). Homosexual identity formation: A theoretical model. Journal of Homosexuality, 4(3), 219–235. https://doi.org/10.1300/J082v04n03_01 Cass V. C. (1984). Homosexual identity: A concept in need of definition. Journal of Homosexuality, 9(2-3), 105–126. https://doi.org/10.1300/J082v09n02_07 191 Cass, V. C. (1996). Sexual orientation identity formation: A western phenomenon. In R.P. Cabaj & T. S. Stein (Eds.). Textbook of homosexuality and mental health (pp. 227–251). American Psychiatric Press. Cassidy, J. (2008). The nature of the child's ties. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 3–22). The Guilford Press. Chan, C. S. (1995). Issues of sexual identity in an ethnic minority: The case of Chinese American lesbians, gay men, and bisexual people. In A. R. D'Augelli & C. J. Patterson (Eds.), Lesbian, gay, and bisexual identities over the lifespan: Psychological perspectives (pp. 87–101). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/ 9780195082319.003.0004 Chernin, J. N. & Johnson, M. R. (2003). Affirmative psychotherapy and counseling for lesbians and gay men. Sage. https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781452229157 Chrisler, A.J. (2017), Understanding parent reactions to coming out as lesbian, gay, or bisexual: A theoretical framework. Journal of Family Theory Review, 9, 165-181. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12194 Clements-Nolle, K., Marx, R., & Katz, M. (2006). Attempted suicide among transgender persons: The influence of gender-based discrimination and victimization. Journal of Homosexuality, 51(3), 53–69. https://doi.org/10.1300/J082v51n03_04 Cochran, S. D., Mays, V. M., & Sullivan, J. G. (2003). Prevalence of mental disorders, psychological distress, and mental health services use among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults in the United States. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71(1), 53–61. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-006x.71.1.53 192 Cohen, S. (2004). Social relationships and health. American Psychologist, 59(8), 676–684. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.59.8.676 Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98(2), 310–357. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.98.2.310 Cohler, B. J., & Hammack, P. L. (2007). The psychological world of the gay teenager: Social change, narrative, and "normality". Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36(1), 47–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-006-9110-1 Cole, E. R. (2009). Intersectionality and research in psychology. American Psychologist, 64(3), 170–180. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014564 Coleman, E. (1981-1982). Developmental stages of the coming out process. Journal of Homosexuality, 7(2–3), 31–43. https://doi.org/10.1300/J082v07n02_06 Collins, W. A., & Luebker, C. (1994). Parent and adolescent expectancies: Individual and relational significance. In J. G. Smetana (Ed.), Beliefs about parenting: Origins and developmental implications (pp. 65–80). Jossey-Bass. Colpitts, E., & Gahagan, J. (2016). The utility of resilience as a conceptual framework for understanding and measuring LGBTQ health. International Journal for Equity in Health, 15(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-016-0349-1 Comstock, D. L., & Qin, D. (2005). Relational-cultural theory: A framework for relational development across the lifespan. In D. Comstock (Ed.). Diversity and development: Critical contexts that shape our lives and relationships (pp. 25-46). Thompson Books/Cole. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage. 193 Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229039 D'Amico, E., Julien, D., Tremblay, N., & Chartrand, E. (2015). Gay, lesbian, and bisexual youths coming out to their parents: Parental reactions and youths’ outcomes. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 11(5), 411–437. https://doi.org/10.1080/1550428X.2014.981627 D'Augelli, A. R. (1994). Identity development and sexual orientation: Toward a model of lesbian, gay, and bisexual development. In E. J. Trickett, R. J. Watts, & D. Birman (Eds.), Human diversity: Perspectives on people in context (pp. 312–333). Jossey-Bass/Wiley. D’Augelli, A. R., Grossman, A. H., & Starks, M. T. (2005). Parents’ awareness of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths’ sexual orientation. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67(2), 474–482. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-2445.2005.00129.x D'Augelli, A. R., Grossman, A. H., Starks, M. T., & Sinclair, K. O. (2010). Factors associated with parents' knowledge of gay, lesbian, and bisexual youths' sexual orientation. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 6(2), 178–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/15504281003705410 D'Augelli, A. R., & Hershberger, S. L. (1993). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth in community settings: Personal challenges and mental health problems. American Journal of Community Psychology, 21(4), 421–448. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00942151 D'Augelli, A. R., Hershberger, S. L., & Pilkington, N. W. (1998). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth and their families: Disclosure of sexual orientation and its consequences. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 68(3), 361–371. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0080345 194 Devor, A. H. (2004). Witnessing and mirroring: A fourteen stage model of transsexual identity formation. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Psychotherapy, 8(1-2), 41–67. Diamond, L. M. (2008). Female bisexuality from adolescence to adulthood: Results from a 10-year longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 44(1), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.44.1.5 Diamond, G., Russon, J., & Levy, S. (2016). Attachment-based family therapy: A review of the empirical support. Family Process, 55(3), 595–610. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12241 Domene, J. F., Valach, L., & Young, R. A. (2015). Action in counseling: A contextual action theory perspective. In R. A. Young, J. F. Domene, & L. Valach (Eds.), Counseling and action: Toward life-enhancing work, relationships, and identity (pp. 151–166). Springer Science+Business Media. Domínguez, D. G., Bobele, M., Coppock, J., & Peña, E. (2015). LGBTQ relationally based positive psychology: An inclusive and systemic framework. Psychological Services, 12(2), 177–185. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038824 Doty, N. D., Willoughby, B. L., Lindahl, K. M., & Malik, N. M. (2010). Sexuality related social support among lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39(10), 1134–1147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-010-9566-x Dowshen, N., & Ford, C. A. (2019). Urgent need for research to achieve health equity for sexual and gender minority youth. Pediatrics, 144(3), e20192133. https://doi.org/10.1542/ peds.2019-2133 Durwood, L., McLaughlin, K. A., & Olson, K. R. (2017). Mental health and self-worth in socially transitioned transgender youth. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 56(2), 116–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2016.10.016 195 Eisenberg, M. E., Gower, A. L., McMorris, B. J., Rider, G. N., Shea, G., & Coleman, E. (2017). Risk and protective factors in the lives of transgender/gender nonconforming adolescents. The Journal of Adolescent Health, 61(4), 521–526. Eisenberg, M. E., Gower, A. L., Nic Rider, G., McMorris, B. J., & Coleman, E. (2019). At the intersection of sexual orientation and gender identity: Variations in emotional distress and bullying experience in a large population-based sample of U.S. adolescents. Journal of LGBT Youth, 16(3), 235–254. https://doi.org/10.1080/19361653.2019.1567435 Eisenberg, M. E., & Resnick, M. D. (2006). Suicidality among gay, lesbian and bisexual youth: The role of protective factors. Journal of Adolescent Health, 39(5), 662–668. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2006.04.024 Elze, D. E. (2002). Risk factors for internalizing and externalizing problems among gay, lesbian, and bisexual adolescents. Social Work Research, 26(2), 89–99. Erikson, E. H. (1950). Growth and crises of the “healthy personality”. In M. J. E. Senn (Ed.), Symposium on the healthy personality (pp. 91–146). Josiah Macy, Jr. Foundation. Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. WW Norton & Co. Espelage, D. L., Merrin, G. J., & Hatchel, T. (2018). Peer victimization and dating violence among LGBTQ youth: The impact of school violence and crime on mental health outcomes. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 16(2), 156–173. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/1541204016680408 Fassinger, R. E. (2017). Considering constructions: A new model of affirmative therapy. In K. A. DeBord, A. R. Fischer, K. J. Bieschke, & R. M. Perez (Eds.), Handbook of sexual orientation and gender diversity in counseling and psychotherapy (pp. 19–50). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/15959-002 196 Fassinger, R. E., & Arseneau, J. R. (2007). "I'd Rather Get Wet Than Be Under That Umbrella": Differentiating the Experiences and Identities of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender People. In K. J. Bieschke, R. M. Perez, & K. A. DeBord (Eds.), Handbook of counseling and psychotherapy with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender clients (pp. 19–49). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/11482-001 Feinstein, B. A., Goldfried, M. R., & Davila, J. (2012). The relationship between experiences of discrimination and mental health among lesbians and gay men: An examination of internalized homonegativity and rejection sensitivity as potential mechanisms. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 80(5), 917–927. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029425 Feinstein, B. A., Wadsworth, L. P., Davila, J., & Goldfried, M. R. (2014). Do parental acceptance and family support moderate associations between dimensions of minority stress and depressive symptoms among lesbians and gay men? Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 45(4), 239–246. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035393 Fincham, F. D., & Beach, S. R. H. (2010). Of memes and marriage: Toward a positive relationship science. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 2(1), 4–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-2589.2010.00033.x Flum, H. (2015). Career and identity construction in action: A relational view. In R. A. Young, J. F. Domene, & L. Valach (Eds.), Counseling and action: Toward life-enhancing work, relationships, and identity (pp. 115–133). Springer Science + Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-0773-1_7 Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800405284363 197 Fredriksen-Goldsen, K. I., Shiu, C., Bryan, A. E., Goldsen, J., & Kim, H. J. (2016). Health equity and aging of bisexual older adults: Pathways of risk and resilience. Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 72(3), 468–478. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbw120 Frost, D. M., Lehavot, K., & Meyer, I. H. (2015). Minority stress and physical health among sexual minority individuals. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 38(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10865-013-9523-8 Frost, D. M., & Meyer, I. H. (2009). Internalized homophobia and relationship quality among lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56(1), 97–109. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012844 Gagné, P., Tewksbury, R., & McGaughey, D. (1997). Coming out and crossing over: Identity formation and proclamation in a transgender community. Gender & Society, 11(4), 478–508. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124397011004006 Galupo, M. P., Henise, S. B., & Mercer, N. L. (2016). “The labels don't work very well”: Transgender individuals' conceptualizations of sexual orientation and sexual identity. International Journal of Transgenderism, 17(2), 93–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 15532739.2016.1189373 Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Simon and Schuster. Goldfried, M. R., & Goldfried, A. P. (2001). The importance of parental support in the lives of gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 57(5), 681–693. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.1037 198 Goodrich, K. M. (2009). Mom and dad come out: The process of identifying as a heterosexual parent with a lesbian, gay, or bisexual child. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 3(1), 37–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/15538600902754478 Goodrich, K. M., & Gilbride, D. D. (2010). The refinement and validation of a model of family functioning after child's disclosure as lesbian, gay, or bisexual. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 4(2), 92–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/15538605.2010.483575 Gonzalez, K. A., Rostosky, S. S., Odom, R. D., & Riggle, E. D. (2013). The positive aspects of being the parent of an LGBTQ child. Family Process, 52, 325–-337. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/famp.12009 Gower, A. L., Rider, G. N., Brown, C., McMorris, B. J., Coleman, E., Taliaferro, L. A., & Eisenberg, M. E. (2018). Supporting transgender and gender diverse youth: Protection against emotional distress and substance use. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 55(6), 787–794. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2018.06.030 Grossman, A. H., D'Augelli, A. R., & Frank, J. A. (2011). Aspects of psychological resilience among transgender youth. Journal of LGBT Youth, 8(2), 103–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/19361653.2011.541347 Grossman, A. H., Park, J. Y., Frank, J. A., & Russell, S. T. (2019). Parental responses to transgender and gender nonconforming youth: Associations with parent support, parental abuse, and youths’ psychological adjustment. Journal of Homosexuality, 68(8),1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2019.1696103 Grov, C., Bimbi, D. S., Nanin, J. E., & Parsons, J. T. (2006). Race, ethnicity, gender, and generational factors associated with the coming‐out process among gay, lesbian, and 199 bisexual individuals. Journal of Sex Research, 43(2), 115–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490609552306 Grzanka, P. R., & Moradi, B. (2021). The qualitative imagination in counseling psychology: Enhancing methodological rigor across methods. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 68(3), 247–258. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000560 Hammack P. L. (2008). Narrative and the cultural psychology of identity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12(3), 222–247. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868308316892 Hammack, P.L., Mayers, L. and Windell, E.P. (2013). Narrative, psychology and the politics of sexual identity in the United States: From ‘sickness’ to ‘species’ to ‘subject’. Psychology & Sexuality, 4(3), 219–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2011.621131 Hammack, P. L., Thompson, E. M., & Pilecki, A. (2009). Configurations of identity among sexual minority youth: Context, desire, and narrative. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38(7), 867–883. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-008-9342-3 Hartling, L. M., Rosen, W. B., Walker, M., & Jordan, J. V. (2004). Shame and humiliation: From isolation to relational transformation. In J. V. Jordan, M. Walker, & L. M. Hartling (Eds.), The complexity of connection: Writings from the Stone Center's Jean Baker Miller Training Institute (pp. 103–128). Guilford Press. Hatzenbuehler, M. L., Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Dovidio, J. (2009). How does stigma “get under the skin?”: The mediating role of emotion regulation. Psychological Science, 20(10), 1282–1289. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02441.x Heatherington, L., & Lavner, J. A. (2008). Coming to terms with coming out: Review and recommendations for family systems-focused research. Journal of Family Psychology, 22(3), 329–343. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.22.3.329 200 Henderson, M. G. (1998). Disclosure of sexual orientation: Comments from a parental perspective. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 68(3), 372–375. Hendricks, M. L., & Testa, R. J. (2012). A conceptual framework for clinical work with transgender and gender nonconforming clients: An adaptation of the Minority Stress Model. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 43(5), 460–467. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029597 Herek, G. M., Gillis, J. R., & Cogan, J. C. (2009). Internalized stigma among sexual minority adults: Insights from a social psychological perspective. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56(1), 32–43. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014672 Hershberger, S. L., & D'Augelli, A. R. (1995). The impact of victimization on the mental health and suicidality of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths. Developmental Psychology, 31(1), 65–74. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.31.1.65 Hershberger, S. L., Pilkington, N. W., & D'Augelli, A. R. (1997). Predictors of suicide attempts among gay, lesbian, and bisexual youth. Journal of Adolescent Research, 12(4), 477–497. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743554897124004 Hetherington, C. (1991). Life planning and career counseling with gay and lesbian students. In N. J. Evans & V. A.Wall (Eds.), Beyond tolerance: Gays, lesbians, and bisexuals on campus (pp. 131-145). American College Personnel Association. Hillier, L. (2002). “It's a catch‐22”: Same‐sex‐attracted young people on coming out to parents. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, (97), 75–92. Hinde, R. A., & Stevenson-Hinde, J. (1987). Interpersonal relationships and child development. Developmental Review, 7(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/0273-2297(87)90002-5 201 Hirsch, J. K., Cohn, T. J., Rowe, C. A., & Rimmer, S. E. (2017). Minority sexual orientation, gender identity status and suicidal behavior: Serial indirect effects of hope, hopelessness and depressive symptoms. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 15(2), 260–270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-016-9723-x Hooker, E. (1957). The adjustment of the male overt homosexual. Journal of Projective Techniques, 21, 18–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/08853126.1957.10380742 Horn, S. S., Kosciw, J. G., & Russell, S. T. (2009). New research on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth: Studying lives in context. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38(7), 863–866. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-009-9420-1 Johnson, K. C., LeBlanc, A. J., Sterzing, P. R., Deardorff, J., Antin, T., & Bockting, W. O. (2020). Trans adolescents’ perceptions and experiences of their parents’ supportive and rejecting behaviors. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 67(2), 156–170. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000419 Jordan, J. V. (2010). Relational–cultural therapy. American Psychological Association. Kahn M. J. (1991). Factors affecting the coming out process for lesbians. Journal of Homosexuality, 21(3), 47–70. https://doi.org/10.1300/J082v21n03_03 Katz-Wise, S. L., Budge, S. L., Orovecz, J. J., Nguyen, B., Nava-Coulter, B., & Thomson, K. (2017a). Imagining the future: Perspectives among youth and caregivers in the trans youth family study. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 64(1), 26–40. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000186 Katz-Wise, S. L., Ehrensaft, D., Vetters, R., Forcier, M., & Austin, S. B. (2018). Family functioning and mental health of transgender and gender-nonconforming youth in the trans 202 teen and family narratives project. Journal of Sex Research, 55(4-5), 582–590. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2017.1415291 Katz-Wise, S. L., Mereish, E. H., & Woulfe, J. (2017b). Associations of bisexual-specific minority stress and health among cisgender and transgender adults with bisexual orientation. Journal of Sex Research, 54(7), 899–910. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 00224499.2016.1236181 Katz-Wise, S. L., Rosario, M., & Tsappis, M. (2016). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth and family acceptance. Pediatric Clinics of North America, 63(6), 1011–1025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pcl.2016.07.005 Kelleher, C. (2009). Minority stress and health: Implications for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning (LGBTQ) young people. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 22(4), 373–379. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515070903334995 Kubler-Ross E. (1971) On Death and Dying. Bonniers. Kuczynski, L. (2003). Beyond bidirectionality: Bilateral conceptual frameworks for understanding dynamics in parent-child relations. In L. Kuczynski (Ed.), Handbook of dynamics in parent-child relations (pp. 3–24). Sage. https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/ 9781452229645.n1 Kuczynski, L., & De Mol, J. (2015). Dialectical models of socialization. In W.F. Overton, P. Molenaar, & R.M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science. (7th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 323–368). Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118963418.childpsy109 203 Kuczynski, L., Parkin, C. M., & Pitman, R. (2015). Socialization as dynamic process: A dialectical, transactional perspective. In J. E. Grusec, & P. D. Hastings (Eds.), Handbook of socialization: Theory and research (2nd ed.) (pp. 135–157). Guilford Press. Kwon, P. (2013). Resilience in lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17(4), 371–383. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868313490248 LaSala, M. C. (2010). Coming out, coming home: Helping families adjust to a gay or lesbian child. Columbia University. LaSala, M. C. (2003). When interviewing “family”: Maximizing the insider advantage in the qualitative study of lesbians and gay men. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services,15–30. https://doi.org/10.1300/J041v15n01_02 Lev, A. I. (2004). Transgender emergence: Therapeutic guidelines for working with gender-variant people and their families. Routledge. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 163–188). Sage. Link, B. G., & Phelan, J. C. (2001). Conceptualizing stigma. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 363–385. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.363 Lollis, S. (2003). Conceptualizing the influence of the past and the future in present parent-child relationships. In L. J. Kuczynski (Ed.), Handbook of dynamics in parent-child relations (pp. 67–88). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452229645.n4 Maguen, S., Floyd, F. J., Bakeman, R., & Armistead, L. (2002). Developmental milestones and disclosure of sexual orientation among gay, lesbian, and bisexual youths. Journal of 204 Applied Developmental Psychology, 23(2), 219–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0193-3973(02)00105-3 Manning, J. (2015). Communicating sexual identities: A typology of coming out. Sexuality & Culture: An Interdisciplinary Quarterly, 19(1), 122–138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-014-9251-4 Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41(9), 954–969. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.41.9.954 Marshall, S. K., Botia, L. A., Chiang, M. M.-C., Domene, J. F., Noel, M., Pradhan, K., & Young, R. A. (2021). Using contextual action theory and action-project method to study real-time identity. Identity, 21(4), 309–323. https://doi.org/10.1080/15283488.2021.1960166 Marshall, S. K., Young, R. A., Domene, J., Zaidman-Zait, A. (2008). Adolescent possible selves as jointly constructed in parent-adolescent career conversations and related activities. Identity, 8(3), 185-204. https://doi.org/10.1080/15283480802181727 Marshall, S. K., Zaidman‐Zait, A., Domene, J. F., & Young, R. A. (2012). Qualitative action-project method in family research. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 4(2), 160–173. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-2589.2012.00117.x Matsuno, E., & Israel, T. (2018). Psychological interventions promoting resilience among transgender individuals: Transgender resilience intervention model (TRIM). The Counseling Psychologist, 46(5), 632–655. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000018787261 McCarn, S. R., & Fassinger, R. E. (1996). Revisioning sexual minority identity formation: A new model of lesbian identity and its implications for counseling and research. The Counseling Psychologist, 24(3), 508-534. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000096243011 205 McConnell, E. A., Birkett, M., & Mustanski, B. (2016). Families matter: Social support and mental health trajectories among lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth. The Journal of Adolescent Health, 59(6), 674–680. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2016.07.026 McLean, K. C., & Syed, M. (2015). The field of identity development needs an identity: An introduction to the handbook of identity development. In K. C. McLean and M. Syed (Eds). The Oxford handbook of identity development (pp. 1 – 10). Oxford University Press. McLemore, K. A. (2018). A minority stress perspective on transgender individuals’ experiences with misgendering. Stigma and Health, 3(1), 53–64. https://doi.org/10.1037/sah0000070 McCormack, M., Anderson, E., & Adams, A. (2014). Cohort effect on the coming out experiences of bisexual men. Sociology, 48(6),1207–1223. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0038038513518851 McGoldrick, M., & Shibusawa, T. (2012). The family life cycle. In F. Walsh (Ed.), Normal family processes: Growing diversity and complexity (pp. 375–398). Guilford Press. Mereish, E. H., & Poteat, V. P. (2015). A relational model of sexual minority mental and physical health: The negative effects of shame on relationships, loneliness, and health. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 62(3), 425–437. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000088 Meyer I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129(5), 674–697. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674 Meyer, I. H. (2015). Resilience in the study of minority stress and health of sexual and gender minorities. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 2(3), 209–213. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000132 206 Meyer, I. H., & Frost, D. M. (2013). Minority stress and the health of sexual minorities. In C. J. Patterson & A. R. D'Augelli (Eds.), Handbook of psychology and sexual orientation (pp. 252–266). Oxford University Press. Mills‐Koonce, W. R., Rehder, P. D., & McCurdy, A. L. (2018). The significance of parenting and parent–child relationships for sexual and gender minority adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 28(3), 637–649. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12404 Mohr, J. J., & Sarno, E. L. (2016). The ups and downs of being lesbian, gay, and bisexual: A daily experience perspective on minority stress and support processes. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 63(1), 106–118. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000125 Mulé, N.J. (2015). Much to be desired: LGBT health inequalities and inequities in Canada. In J. Fish and K. Karban, (Eds.) Lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans health inequalities: International perspectives in social work (pp. 27 – 43). Policy Press. Mustanski, B. (2015). Future directions in research on sexual minority adolescent mental, behavioral, and sexual health. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 44(1), 204–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2014.982756 Mustanski, B., Kuper, L., & Greene, G. J. (2014). Development of sexual orientation and identity. In D. L. Tolman, L. M. Diamond, J. A. Bauermeister, W. H. George, J. G. Pfaus, & L. M. Ward (Eds.), APA handbook of sexuality and psychology, Vol. 1. Person-based approaches (pp. 597–628). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14193-019 Needham, B. L., & Austin, E. L. (2010). Sexual orientation, parental support, and health during the transition to young adulthood. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39(10), 1189–1198. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-010-9533-6 207 Newcomb, M. E., LaSala, M. C., Bouris, A., Mustanski, B., Prado, G., Schrager, S. M., & Huebner, D. M. (2019). The influence of families on LGBTQ youth health: A call to action for innovation in research and intervention development. LGBT Health, 6(4), 139–145. https://doi.org/10.1089/lgbt.2018.0157 Olson, K. R., Durwood, L., DeMeules, M., & McLaughlin, K. A. (2016). Mental health of transgender children who are supported in their identities. Pediatrics, 137(3). https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2015-3223 Orne, M. T., & Whitehouse, W. G. (2000). Demand characteristics. In A. E. Kazdin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 469–470). American Psychological Association. Ott, M. Q., Corliss, H. L., Wypij, D., Rosario, M., & Austin, S. B. (2011). Stability and change in self-reported sexual orientation identity in young people: Application of mobility metrics. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40(3), 519–532. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-010-9691-3 Pachankis, J. E. (2007). The psychological implications of concealing a stigma: A cognitive-affective-behavioral model. Psychological Bulletin, 133(2), 328–345. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.2.328 Pachankis, J. E., Goldfried, M. R., & Ramrattan, M. E. (2008). Extension of the rejection sensitivity construct to the interpersonal functioning of gay men. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 76(2), 306–317. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.76.2.306 Padilla, Y. C., Crisp, C., & Rew, D. L. (2010). Parental acceptance and illegal drug use among gay, lesbian, and bisexual adolescents: Results from a national survey. Social Work, 55(3), 265–275. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/55.3.265 208 Pariseau, E. M., Chevalier, L., Long, K. A., Clapham, R., Edwards-Leeper, L., & Tishelman, A. C. (2019). The relationship between family acceptance-rejection and transgender youth psychosocial functioning. Clinical Practice in Pediatric Psychology, 7(3), 267–277. https://doi.org/10.1037/cpp0000291 Parker, C. M., Hirsch, J. S., Philbin, M. M., & Parker, R. G. (2018). The urgent need for research and interventions to address family-based stigma and discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer youth. Journal of Adolescent Health, 63(4), 383–393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2018.05.018 Patterson, C. J. (2017). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender family issues in the context of changing legal and social policy environments. In K. A. DeBord, A. R. Fischer, K. J. Bieschke, & R. M. Perez (Eds.), Handbook of sexual orientation and gender diversity in counseling and psychotherapy (pp. 313–331). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/15959-013 Pearson, J., & Wilkinson, L. (2013). Family relationships and adolescent well-being: Are families equally protective for same-sex attracted youth? Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(3), 376–393. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-012-9865-5 Perlman, D. (2007). The best of times, the worst of times: The place of close relationships in psychology and our daily lives. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 48(1), 7–18. https://doi.org/10.1037/cp2007003 Peter, T., Taylor, C., & Campbell, C. (2016). “You can't break… when you're already broken”: The importance of school climate to suicidality among LGBTQ youth. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Mental Health, 20(3), 195-213. https://doi.org/10.1080/19359705.2016.1171188 209 Peter, T., Taylor, C., & Chamberland, L. (2015). A queer day in Canada: Examining Canadian high school students’ experiences with school-based homophobia in two large-scale studies. Journal of Homosexuality, 62(2), 186–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369. 2014.969057 Pflum, S. R., Testa, R. J., Balsam, K. F., Goldblum, P. B., & Bongar, B. (2015). Social support, trans community connectedness, and mental health symptoms among transgender and gender nonconforming adults. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 2(3), 281–286. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000122 Phillips, M. J., & Ancis, J. R. (2008). The process of identity development as the parent of a lesbian or gay male. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 2(2), 126-158. Polak, E. L. (2014). Mother-daughter conversations about appearance: Body image development through joint projects (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. Pollitt, A. M., Muraco, J. A., Grossman, A. H., & Russell, S. T. (2017). Disclosure stress, social support, and depressive symptoms among cisgender bisexual youth. Journal of Marriage and Family, 79(5), 1278–1294. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12418 Ponterotto, J. G. (2005). Qualitative research in counseling psychology: A primer on research paradigms and philosophy of science. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 126–136. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.126 Potoczniak, D. J., Aldea, M. A., & DeBlaere, C. (2007). Ego identity, social anxiety, social support, and self-concealment in lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54(4), 447–457. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.54.4.447 210 Potoczniak, D., Crosbie-Burnett, M., & Saltzburg, N. (2009). Experiences regarding coming out to parents among African American, Hispanic, and White gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and questioning adolescents. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services: Issues in Practice, Policy & Research, 21(2-3), 189–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 10538720902772063 Poteat, V. P., Mereish, E. H., DiGiovanni, C. D., & Koenig, B. W. (2011). The effects of general and homophobic victimization on adolescents' psychosocial and educational concerns: The importance of intersecting identities and parent support. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58(4), 597–609. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025095 Puckett, J. A., Matsuno, E., Dyar, C., Mustanski, B., & Newcomb, M. E. (2019). Mental health and resilience in transgender individuals: What type of support makes a difference? Journal of Family Psychology, 33(8), 954–964. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000561 Pullen Sansfaçon, A., Medico, D., Gelly, M., Kirichenko, V., & Suerich-Gulick, F. (2021). Blossoming child, mourning parent: A qualitative study of trans children and their parents navigating transition. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10826-021-02178-w Reczek, C. (2020). Sexual‐ and gender‐minority families: A 2010 to 2020 decade in review. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82(1), 300–325. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12607 Riggle, E. D. B., Rostosky, S. S., McCants, L., & Pascale-Hague, D. (2011). The positive aspects of a transgender self-identification. Psychology and Sexuality, 2, 147- 158. https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2010.534490 211 Riggle, E. D. B., Whitman, J. S., Olson, A., Rostosky, S. S., & Strong, S. (2008). The positive aspects of being a lesbian or gay man. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 39(2), 210–217. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.39.2.210 Riggs, D. W., & Treharne, G. J. (2017). Decompensation: A novel approach to accounting for stress arising from the effects of ideology and social norms. Journal of Homosexuality, 64(5), 592–605. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2016.1194116 Roberts, K. E., Schwartz, D., & Hart, T. A. (2011). Social anxiety among lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender adolescents and young adults. In C. A. Alfano & D. C. Beidel (Eds.), Social anxiety in adolescents and young adults: Translating developmental science into practice (pp. 161–181). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/ 12315-009 Rosario, M., Schrimshaw, E. W., & Hunter, J. (2011). Different patterns of sexual identity development over time: Implications for the psychological adjustment of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths. Journal of Sex Research, 48(1), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 00224490903331067 Rood, B. A., Reisner, S. L., Surace, F. I., Puckett, J. A., Maroney, M. R., & Pantalone, D. W. (2016). Expecting rejection: Understanding the minority stress experiences of transgender and gender-nonconforming individuals. Transgender Health, 1(1), 151-164. https://doi.org/10.1089/trgh.2016.0012 Rosenkrantz, D. E., Rostosky, S. S., Toland, M. D., & Dueber, D. M. (2020). Cognitive-affective and religious values associated with parental acceptance of an LGBT child. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 7(1), 55–65. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000355 212 Rosqvist, H. B., Nordlund, L., & Kaiser, N. (2014). Developing an authentic sex: Deconstructing developmental–psychological discourses of transgenderism in a clinical setting. Feminism & Psychology, 24(1), 20-36. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353513510653 Rotzinger, K. (2018). Experiences of transgender people in the healthcare system: A complex analysis. University of Ottawa Journal of Medicine, 8(1), 56-61. https://doi.org/10.18192/uojm.v8i1.2390 Russell, S. T. (2003). Sexual minority youth and suicide risk. American Behavioral Scientist, 46(9), 1241–1257. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764202250667 Russell, S. T. (2005). Beyond risk: Resilience in the lives of sexual minority youth. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Issues in Education, 2(3), 5-18. https://doi.org/10.1300/J367v02n03_02 Russell, S. T., Clarke, T. J., & Clary, J. (2009). Are teens “post-gay”? Contemporary adolescents’ sexual identity labels. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38(7), 884–890. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-008-9388-2 Russell, S. T., & Fish, J. N. (2019). Sexual minority youth, social change, and health: A developmental collision. Research in Human Development, 16(1), 5–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/15427609.2018.1537772 Russell, S. T., Watson, R., & Muraco, J. A. (2011). The development of same-sex intimate relationships during adolescence. In B. Laursen & W. A. Collins (Eds.), Relationship pathways: From adolescence to young adulthood (pp. 215–231). Sage. Rust, P. C. (2003). Finding a sexual identity and community: Therapeutic implications and cultural assumptions in scientific models of coming out. In L. D. Garnets & D. C. Kimmel (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on lesbian, gay and bisexual experiences (pp. 227–269). Columbia University Press. 213 Ryan, C., Huebner, D., Diaz, R. M., & Sanchez, J. (2009). Family rejection as a predictor of negative health outcomes in white and Latino lesbian, gay, and bisexual young adults. Pediatrics, 123(1), 346–352. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2007-3524 Ryan, C., Russell, S. T., Huebner, D., Diaz, R., & Sanchez, J. (2010). Family acceptance in adolescence and the health of LGBT young adults. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing, 23(4), 205–213. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6171.2010.00246.x Saewyc, E. M. (2011). Research on adolescent sexual orientation: Development, health disparities, stigma, and resilience. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21(1), 256–272. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00727.x Saewyc, E. M., Konishi, C., Rose, H. A., & Homma, Y. (2014). School-based strategies to reduce suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, and discrimination among sexual minority and heterosexual adolescents in Western Canada. International Journal of Child, Youth & Family Studies, 5(1), 89–112. https://doi.org/10.18357/ijcyfs.saewyce.512014 Saewyc E. M., Poon C., Wang N., Homma Y., Smith A., & the McCreary Centre Society (2007). Not yet equal: The health of lesbian, gay, & bisexual youth in BC. McCreary Centre Society. Saltzburg, S. (2004). Learning that an adolescent child is gay or lesbian: The parent experience. Social Work, 49(1), 109–118. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/49.1.109 Samarova, V., Shilo, G., & Diamond, G. M. (2014). Changes in youths' perceived parental acceptance of their sexual minority status over time. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 24(4), 681–688. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12071 Savin-Williams, R. C. (1989). Coming out to parents and self-esteem among gay and lesbian youths. Journal of Homosexuality, 18(1-2), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1300/J082v18n01_01 214 Savin-Williams, R. C. (1994). Verbal and physical abuse as stressors in the lives of lesbian, gay male, and bisexual youths: Associations with school problems, running away, substance abuse, prostitution, and suicide. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62(2), 261–269. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.62.2.261 Savin-Williams, R. C. (2001a). Mom, dad, I’m gay: How families negotiate coming out. American Psychological Association. Savin-Williams, R. C. (2001b). A critique of research on sexual-minority youths. Journal of Adolescence, 24(1), 5–13. https://doi.org/10.1006/jado.2000.0369 Savin-Williams, R. C. (2003). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths' relationships with their parents. In L. D. Garnets & D. C. Kimmel (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on lesbian, gay, and bisexual experiences (pp. 299–326). Columbia University Press. Savin-Williams, R. C. (2005). The new gay teenager. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674043138 Savin-Williams, R. C., & Diamond, L. M. (2000). Sexual identity trajectories among sexual-minority youths: Gender comparisons. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 29(6), 607–627. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1002058505138 Savin-Williams, R. C. & Dubé, E. (1998). Parental reactions to their child’s disclosure of a gay/lesbian identity. Family Relations, 47(1), 7-13. https://doi.org/10.2307/584845 Savin-Williams, R. C., & Ream, G. L. (2003). Sex variations in the disclosure to parents of same-sex attractions. Journal of Family Psychology, 17(3), 429–438. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.17.3.429 Scabini, E., Marta, E., & Lanz, M. (2006). The transition to adulthood and family relation: An intergenerational perspective. Psychology Press. 215 Schmidt, C. K., & Nilsson, J. E. (2006). The effects of simultaneous developmental processes: Factors relating to the career development of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth. The Career Development Quarterly, 55, 22–37. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-0045.2006.tb00002.x Schmitz, R. M., & Tyler, K. A. (2019). “Life has actually become more clear”: An examination of resilience among LGBTQ young adults. Sexualities, 22(4), 710–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363460718770451 Schneider, K. J., & Krug, O. T. (2010). Existential-humanistic therapy. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Schulenberg, J. E., Sameroff, A. J., & Cicchetti, D. (2004). The transition to adulthood as a critical juncture in the course of psychopathology and mental health [Editorial]. Development and Psychopathology, 16(4), 799–806. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579404040015 Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55(1), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.5 Sheets, R. L., Jr., & Mohr, J. J. (2009). Perceived social support from friends and family and psychosocial functioning in bisexual young adult college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56(1), 152–163. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.56.1.152 Shields, S. A. (2008). Gender: An intersectionality perspective. Sex Roles, 59(5-6), 301–311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008-9501-8 Simons, L., Schrager, S. M., Clark, L. F., Belzer, M., & Olson, J. (2013). Parental support and mental health among transgender adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 53(6), 791–793. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2013.07.019 216 Singh, A. A., Meng, S. E., & Hansen, A. W. (2014). “I am my own gender”: Resilience strategies of trans youth. Journal of Counseling & Development, 92(2), 208–218. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.2014.00150.x Snapp, S. D., Watson, R. J., Russell, S. T., Diaz, R. M., & Ryan, C. (2015). Social support networks for LGBT young adults: Low cost strategies for positive adjustment. Family Relations, 64(3), 420–430. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12124 Stake, R. E. (2005). Multiple case study analysis. Guilford Press. Suen, L. W., Lunn, M. R., Katuzny, K., Finn, S., Duncan, L., Sevelius, J., Flentje, A., Capriotti, M. R., Lubensky, M. E., Hunt, C., Weber, S., Bibbins-Domingo, K., & Obedin-Maliver, J. (2020). What sexual and gender minority people want researchers to know about sexual orientation and gender identity questions: A qualitative study. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 49(7), 2301–2318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-020-01810-y Swann, S. K., & Anastas, J. W. (2003). Dimensions of lesbian identity during adolescence and young adulthood. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 15(1-2), 109–125. https://doi.org/10.1300/J041v15n01_08 Tan, K. K. H., Treharne, G. J., Ellis, S. J., Schmidt, J. M., & Veale, J. F. (2020). Gender minority stress: A critical review. Journal of Homosexuality, 67(10), 1471–1489. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2019.1591789 Taylor, C. & Peter, T., McMinn, T.L., Elliott, T., Beldom, S., Ferry, A., Gross, Z., Paquin, S., & Schachter, K. (2011). Every class in every school: The first national climate survey on homophobia, biphobia, and transphobia in Canadian schools. Final report. Egale Canada Human Rights Trust. 217 Tebbe, E. A., & Moradi, B. (2016). Suicide risk in trans populations: An application of minority stress theory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 63(5), 520–533. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000152 Testa, R. J., Habarth, J., Peta, J., Balsam, K., & Bockting, W. (2015). Development of the gender minority stress and resilience measure. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 2(1), 65–77. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000081 Tyler, T. R. (2015). Our story: The parent and LGBTQ child relational process. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 27(1), 17–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/10538720.2015.988313 Thompson, S. A., Bryson, M., & de Castell, S. (2001). Prospects for identity formation for lesbian, gay, or bisexual persons with developmental disabilities. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 48(1), 53–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 10349120120036305 Tolman, D. L., & Diamond, L. M. (2014). Sexuality theory: A review, a revision and a recommendation. In D. L. Tolman, L. M. Diamond, J. A. Bauermeister, W. H. George, J. G. Pfaus, & L. M. Ward (Eds.), APA handbook of sexuality and psychology, Vol. 1. Person-based approaches (pp. 3–27). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14193-001 Torkelson, J. (2012). A queer vision of emerging adulthood: Seeing sexuality in the transition to adulthood. Sexuality Research & Social Policy, 9(2), 132–142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-011-0078-6 Travers, R., Bauer, G., Pyne, J., Bradley, K., Gale, L., & Papaimitriou, M. (2012). Impacts of strong parental support for trans youth: A report prepared for Children’s Aid Society of 218 Toronto and Delisle Youth Services. http://transpulseproject.ca/wp-content/uploads/ 2012/10/Impacts-of-Strong-Parental-Support-for-Trans-Youth-vFINAL .pdf Umberson, D., & Thomeer, M. B. (2020). Family matters: Research on family ties and health, 2010 to 2020. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82(1), 404–419. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12640 Valach, L., Young, R. A., & Lynam, M. J. (2002). Action theory: A primer for applied research in the social sciences. Greenwood Publishing Group. van Bergen, D. D., Wilson, B. D., Russell, S. T., Gordon, A. G., & Rothblum, E. D. (2021). Parental responses to coming out by lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer, pansexual, or two-spirited people across three age cohorts. Journal of Marriage and Family, 83, 1116–1133. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12731 Vandello, J. A., and Bosson, J. K. (2013). Hvan Wel, F., Linssen, H., & Abma, R. (2000). The parental bond and the well-being of adolescents and young adults. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 29(3), 307–318. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005195624757 Vaughan, M. D., & Rodriguez, E. M. (2014). LGBT strengths: Incorporating positive psychology into theory, research, training, and practice. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 1(4), 325–334. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000053 Veale, J. F., Saewyc, E. M., Frohard-Dourlent, H., Dobson, S., & Clark, B., & The Canadian Trans Youth Health Survey Research Group (2015). Being safe, being me: Results of the Canadian Trans Youth Health Survey. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada: Stigma and Resilience Among Vulnerable Youth Centre, School of Nursing, University of British Columbia. 219 Veale, J. F., Watson, R. J., Peter, T., & Saewyc, E. M. (2017). Mental health disparities among Canadian transgender youth. Journal of Adolescent Health, 60(1), 44-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2016.09.014 von Cranach, M., Kalbermatten, U., Indermuhle, K., & Gugler, B. (1982). Goal-directed action. Academic Press. Wakeley, M. D., & Tuason, M. T. G. (2011). Tasks in acceptance: Mothers of lesbian daughters. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 23(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/10538720. 2010.541027 Watson, R. J., Grossman, A. H., & Russell, S. T. (2019). Sources of social support and mental health among LGB youth. Youth & Society, 51(1), 30–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0044118X16660110 Watson, R. J., & Veale, J. (2018). Transgender youth are strong: Resilience among gender expansive youth worldwide. International Journal of Transgenderism, 19(2), 115–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/15532739.2018.1474832 Watson, R. J., Wheldon, C. W., & Puhl, R. M. (2020). Evidence of diverse identities in a large national sample of sexual and gender minority adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 30, 431–442. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12488 Weinberg, M. S., Williams, C. J., & Pryor, D. W. (1994). Dual attraction: Understanding bisexuality. Oxford University Press. Wells, K., Frohard-Dourlent, H., Saewyc, E. M., Ferguson, M., Veale, J., & the Canadian Trans Youth Health Survey Research Group. (2017). Being safe, being me in Alberta: Results of the Canadian trans youth health survey. 220 Weststrate, N. M., & McLean, K. C. (2010). The rise and fall of gay: A cultural-historical approach to gay identity development. Memory, 18(2), 225–240. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09658210903153923 Westwater, J. J., Riley, E. A., & Peterson, G. M. (2019). What about the family in youth gender diversity? A literature review. International Journal of Transgenderism, 20(4), 351–370. https://doi.org/10.1080/15532739.2019.1652130 White Hughto, J. M., Reisner, S. L., & Pachankis, J. E. (2015). Transgender stigma and health: A critical review of stigma determinants, mechanisms, and interventions. Social Science & Medicine, 147, 222–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.11.010 Willoughby, B. L. B., Malik, N. M., & Lindahl, K. M. (2006). Parental reactions to their sons' sexual orientation disclosures: The roles of family cohesion, adaptability, and parenting style. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 7(1), 14–26. https://doi.org/10.1037/1524-9220.7.1.14 Willoughby, B. L., Doty, N. D., & Malik, N. M. (2008). Parental reactions to their child’s sexual orientation disclosure: A family stress perspective. Parenting, 8(1), 70–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295190701830680 Willoughby, B. L., Doty, N. D., & Malik, N. M. (2010). Victimization, family rejection, and outcomes of gay, lesbian, and bisexual young people: The role of negative GLB identity. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 6(4), 403–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/1550428X. 2010.511085 Young, R. A., & Collin, A. (2004). Introduction: Constructivism and social constructionism in the career field. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64(3), 373–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2003.12.005 221 Young, R. A., Domene, J. F., Valach, L., & Socholotiuk, K. (2021). Exploring human action in counseling psychology: The action-project research method. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 68(3), 331–343. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000533 Young, R. A., Marshall, S., Domene, J. F., Arato-Bolivar, J., Hayoun, R., Marshall, E., Zaidman-Zait, A., & Valach, L. (2006). Relationships, communication, and career in the parent-adolescent projects of families with and without challenges. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2005.05.001 Young, R. A., Marshall, S. K., Domene, J. F., Graham, M., Logan, C., Templeton, L., Zaidman-Zait, A., & Valach, L. (2007). Meaningful actions and motivated projects in the transition to adulthood: Two case illustrations. International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance, 7(3), 149-158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10775-007-9127-3 Young, R. A., Marshall, S. K., Domene, J. F., Graham, M., Logan, C., Zaidman-Zait, A., Mart, A., & Lee, C. M. (2008). Transition to adulthood as a parent-youth project: Governance transfer, career promotion, and relational processes. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 55(3), 297–307. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.55.3.297 Young, R. A., Marshall, S. K., Valach, L., Domene, J. F., Graham, A. Z. (2011). Transition to adulthood as goal-directed action. In Young, R. A. et al., (Eds). Transition to adulthood: Action, projects, and counselling (p. 11-22). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-6238-6_2 Young, R. A., & Popadiuk, N. (2012). Social constructionist theories of vocational psychology. In P. McIlveen, & D. E. Schultheiss (Eds.), Social constructionism in vocational psychology and career development (pp. 9-28). Sense Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-080-4_2 222 Young, R. A., & Valach, L. (2004). The construction of career through goal-directed action. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64(3), 499–514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2003.12.012 Young, R. A., Valach, L., Ball, J., Paseluikho, M. A., Wong, Y. S., DeVries, R. J., McLean, H., & Turkel, H. (2001). Career development in adolescence as a family project. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 48(2), 190–202. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.48.2.190 Young, R. A., Valach, L., & Collin, A. (1996). A contextual explanation of career. In D. Brown, & L. Brooks (Eds.), Career counseling and development (3rd ed., pp. 477–552). Jossey-Bass. Young, R. A., Valach, L., & Domene, J. F. (2005). The action-project method in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 215–223. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.215 Zullo, L., Seager van Dyk, I., Ollen, E., Ramos, N., Asarnow, J., & Miranda, J. (2021). Treatment recommendations and barriers to care for suicidal LGBTQ youth: A quality improvement study. Evidence-Based Practice in Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 6(3), 393-409. https://doi.org/10.1080/23794925.2021.1950079 223 Appendix A – Recruitment Poster Parent-Youth Pairs Needed for Research Study: The Process of Coming Out for LGBTQ+ Youth and their Parents Then we need YOUR HELP to find out how parents and youth work together to navigate the “coming out” process. Your experience is important to us, and will help us to form a more complete picture of the coming out process as it unfolds within the context of parent-youth relationships. Your participation will provide valuable information that may help other families. Involvement includes 2 interviews and a telephone monitoring period (consisting of 4 brief telephone calls over 4 months). Your involvement will amount to approximately 3-4 hours over 6-8 months. Each participant will receive $50 for their involvement in the study. PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Dr. Richard Young, UBC Professor PRIMARY RESEARCHER: David Munro, PhD Candidate, UBC For the YOUTH participant:  Are you 15-25 years old?  Do you self-identify as LGBTQ+ (i.e., lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, two-spirit, pansexual, queer, etc.)?  Have you disclosed your sexual orientation and/or gender identity to one or both of your parents? For the PARENT participant:  Are you the parent (biological or non-biological) or in the parenting role of a youth between 15-25 years old?  Has the youth disclosed to you that they identify as LGBTQ+ (i.e., lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, two-spirit, pansexual, queer, etc.)? To find out more about how you can get involved, please contact David Munro at 778 316 8182 or at davemunro@alumni.ubc.ca. Please leave your name and a telephone number where you can be reached and the primary researcher will contact you. 224 Appendix B – Telephone Screening Thank you very much for your interest in the study! How did you hear about this study? We are studying the coming out process for LGBTQ+ youth. In particular, we want to know more about parent-youth relationships and how they impact the coming out process for LGBTQ+ youth. We would also like to know more about parents’ adjustment processes. In particular, we are interested in finding out how parents and youth work together in developing and acting on goals related to the youth’s coming out. For this study, we are looking for youth and parents (or those who are in parenting roles) who are willing to talk to us about the coming out process for the youth, and what role parents play in this process. Do you have any questions about this study? We are looking for people who would be interested in coming to UBC (or meeting off-campus, e.g., at a community center) for two meetings with our researchers. The purpose would be to discuss issues that are important to you and may be related to the youth participant’s coming out process. During the interview, you will be asked to have a conversation with your parent/child. After that, you will review the video recording with one of the researchers and discuss your thoughts and feelings about the interview. About one or two months later, you will be asked to come back for a second meeting. This will be shorter than the first meeting (approximately 45 minutes). After that, there will not be any more face-to-face meetings. Instead, we will call you by telephone 4 times (at your convenience) over 4-8 months to discuss the project. Each telephone call should be no more than approximately 10-20 minutes in length. Do you have any questions at this time? Are you interested in becoming involved? There are a couple of things that I should let you know about: First, all the information will be kept strictly confidential. Also, we will not be able to accept everyone who wants to take part in the study, so I have some questions that I need to ask to determine your eligibility. We can go through these now or I can call back in two days to complete the form if you would like some time to think about it. 225 Youth Telephone Screening Form Date of Screening Call:______________Name:__________________________ Relationship to parent (or person in parenting role) participant:___________________________ Date of birth:__________________ Age:________ Born in Canada? __________ If no, how many years in Canada? _________________ Language/s spoken in home? __________________________________________________ Do you identify with a particular ethnic group? ____________________________________ Are you currently attending secondary school? Yes/No. Grade: _______ Are you currently attending college or university? Yes/No. Year: _______ Are you currently working? Yes/No If yes, could you please describe your current work situation (e.g., employed part-time, employed full-time, or other). ______________________________________________________________________________ How would you self-identify with regards to gender identity and/or expression, e.g., male, female, masculine, feminine, non-binary, two-spirit, gender-fluid, cisgender, transgender, or choose not to describe? ______________________________________________________________________________ Would you describe yourself as religious? If so, what religious affiliation? ______________________________________________________________________________ How would you self-identify with regards to your sexual orientation, e.g., gay, lesbian, bisexual, pansexual, queer, questioning or some other label, or choose not to describe? (If other label, please describe) ______________________________________________________________________________ At what age were you when you first realized that you might be a person who identifies as LGBTQ+? ______________________________________________________________________________ Have you come out to friends? If yes, at what age/s were you? ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 226 Have you come out to other family members? If yes, at what ages were you? ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ At what age were you when you came out to your parent who is participating in this study? ______________________________________________________________________________ Can you briefly describe how your coming out experience has been with your parent? __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Is there anything else you’d like to mention about your relationship with your parent (the one participating in the study)? __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Can you say in a few words how you see your life right now? ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ What is the telephone number we can reach you at?____________________________________ What days/times are you available to come in for an interview? ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ In order to move to the next phase of your involvement in the study, your parent also needs to get in contact with me via telephone or email and I will need to go over this with them also. After that, I will consult with my supervisor and then I will be in touch with you to arrange the first interview. Do you have any questions at this time? 227 Parent Telephone Screening Form Date of Screening Call:______________Name:__________________________ Relationship to youth participant:_____________________________________ Age:________ Marital Status:_________________ Number of children:_____________ What is your parenting role? (e.g., mother, father, other)____________________________ Born in Canada? __________ If no, how many years in Canada? _____________________ Language/s spoken in home? __________________________________________________ Do you identify with a particular ethnic group? ____________________________________ Could you please describe your current work situation (e.g., unemployed, employed part-time, employed full-time, or other). ______________________________________________________________________________ What is your highest level of education (e.g., elementary, secondary school, college/university courses, college university degree, master’s degree, doctoral degree)? ______________________________________________________________________________ How would you self-identify with regards to gender identity and/or expression, e.g., male, female, masculine, feminine, non-binary, two-spirit, gender-fluid, cisgender, transgender, or choose not to describe? ______________________________________________________________________________ Would you describe yourself as religious? If so, what religious affiliation? ______________________________________________________________________________ How would you self-identify with regards to your sexual orientation, e.g., heterosexual, gay, lesbian, bisexual, pansexual, queer, questioning or some other label, or choose not to describe? (If other label, please describe) ______________________________________________________________________________ How old is your son/daughter/child (who is participating in the study)? _______________ Can you briefly describe the circumstances surrounding the disclosure/discovery of your son/daughter/child’s sexual orientation or gender identity? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 228 ______________________________________________________________________________ Can you say in a few words (3-4) how you see your life right now? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ What is the telephone number we can reach you at?_________________________________ What days/times are you available to come in for an interview? ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ In order to move to the next phase of your involvement in the study, your son or daughter also needs to get in contact with me via telephone or email and I will need to go over this with them also. After that, I will consult with my supervisor and then I will be in touch with you to arrange the first interview. Do you have any questions? 229 Appendix C – Consent Form a place of mind TH E U N I V E R S I TY O F B R ITI S H C O L U MB IA Faculty of Education Department of Education and Counselling Psychology, and Special Education 2125 Main Mall Vancouver, BC Canada V6T 1Z4 Phone 604 822 0242 Fax 604 822 3302 www.ecps.educ.ubc.ca Consent Form Title of Study: The Process of Coming Out for LGBTQ+ Youth With Their Parents Principal Investigator: Dr. Richard Young, Professor, UBC Department of Educational & Counselling Psychology, and Special Education, Faculty of Education 604.822.6380 richard.young@ubc.ca Primary Researcher: David Munro, PhD Student, UBC Department of Educational & Counselling Psychology, and Special Education, Faculty of Education 778.316.8182 davemunro@alumni.ubc.ca Sponsor: The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council This research is being conducted as part of the requirements for David Munro for the Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) degree in Counselling Psychology at the University of British Columbia. 230 Purpose of this research: We are interested in finding out more about LGBTQ+ youth (i.e., individuals who self-identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer, and/or transgender) and their relationships with their parents. The goal of this research is to better understand the relational processes that occur between parents and youth following the youth’s coming out as LGBTQ+. You can help us understand more about how parents and LGBTQ+ youth talk to each other during the coming out process. You do not have to be involved with this research project if you do not want to, and you may leave at any time. Study Procedures: If you agree to be in this study, you will have two face-to-face meetings with the researchers. During the first meeting the researchers will ask you to talk with each other about your experiences regarding the youth participant’s coming out process. They will video-record you during this conversation. Then you will watch the video recording of the conversation alone with one of the research assistants. They will stop the video once every minute. They will ask you what you were thinking or feeling during that part of the conversation. The information you share during the video playback interview will not be shared with the other participant (e.g., the parent or youth). At the second meeting, about 1 month after the first meeting, the researchers will go over the main points of what the two of you talked about at the first meeting. At this time, you will be asked to review a written summary of the conversation from the first meeting. This summary will outline a possible ‘joint parent-youth project’ that is related to the youth’s coming out as a person who identifies as LGBTQ+. You will be asked for feedback about whether the identified project represents your experience, and how you would like it changed, if at all. After the second meeting, the researchers will contact you by phone 4 times over a 4-month period at a time that is convenient for you. Each phone call will be approximately 10-15 minutes in length. The purpose of these phone calls is to monitor the identified project and see if there are any changes over time. The total time involved for the whole study will be 3-4 hours over about 6-8 months. The interviews will be video- and audio-recorded. They will take place in a private and comfortable location. We will pay your parking or bus fare to and from the interview, and you (parent and youth) will each receive $20 for your participation in the study. Potential risks: There are no known risks associated with being involved in this study. We might talk about sensitive or personal things during the interviews. If a question makes you feel uncomfortable, or you don’t want to talk about it, you can choose to not answer a question, and you can ask to stop the interview at any time. 231 You will be provided with a list of counselling and other resources. You may wish to seek assistance independently of your involvement in this research study to address any sensitive or challenging issues that may arise in the context of the study. Potential benefits: You may or may not find that talking with one another and with the researchers is helpful for you. Participation in this study may help you identify and describe your goals and how you work together with one another to achieve these goals. In addition, your participation in this study could provide valuable information that will help other families who are experiencing similar processes. Confidentiality: We will protect your privacy. Your name or your image will not be on any tapes, reports, or presentations. All of the information from your interview will be kept in a locked filing cabinet. The only people who will have access to this material are the research team. How the Results will be Used: The results of this research will be included in a dissertation that will become a public document in the University of British Columbia library once completed. The findings may also be published in appropriate academic and/or professional journals, and other media outlets. Choosing to stop your participation: Your participation in this study is your choice. You may stop or quit the study at any time. You may also have another person whom you trust speak with us and look over this consent form before you agree to take part in our study. Contact for information about the study: If you have any questions or concerns about anything to do with the project you may contact the lead researcher, David Munro at 778-316-8182 or by email – davemunro@alumni.ubc.ca Contact for concerns about the rights of research participants: If you have any questions or concerns about your rights as a research participant and/or your experiences while participating in this study, you may contact the Research Subject Information Line in the UBC Office of Research Services at 604-822-8598 or if long distance e-mail RSIL@ors.ubc.ca or call toll free 1-877-822-8598. 232 Consent Form I understand that my participation in this study is entirely voluntary (I do not have to participate if I do not want to) and, I may refuse to participate or leave the study at any time. By signing this, I am showing that I have received a copy of this consent form for my own records. My signature below indicates that I consent to participate in this study. _________________________________________________________________ Name of Participant (Please Print) _________________________________________________________________ Signature Date 233 Appendix D – Data Collection and Interview Protocol FIRST INTERVIEW Two participants will attend the first interview session together. The primary investigator and a research assistant will conduct this data gathering session. The interview will begin by obtaining signed informed consent from each participant. Each participant will be provided with an informed consent form, and the researcher will read the form aloud to the participants. Afterwards, the participants will be asked if they have any questions. After questions have been answered, the consent forms signed, and the participants given copies to retain, the video and audio recording equipment will be turned on. The primary object of this data collection session is to record an actual conversational interaction between the youth and their parent/guardian and to ask participants about their thoughts and feelings regarding the conversation during the video-recall portion. Warm-up Interview The purpose of the warm-up is to get the participants thinking about what types of conversations they are already having that may be related to the youth’s coming out, and to think about having a similar conversation. Some of the questions the researcher will ask are: “What was it about this research study that made you want to participate in this study?” “What kinds of things do you talk together about?” “What issues have you been discussing with one another recently?” “How long ago did (youth) come out, and what was the family’s response?” “What kinds of conversations do you have that are related to (youth’s) coming out?” “Can you recall any recent conversations that you had about this topic?” “Think about some topics you have both discussed recently – would you be able to have a similar conversation now?” Conversation When it appears that the participants are prepared to have a conversation together, the researchers will inform participants that they will leave the room so that the participants may have the conversation in private. The participants are told that, while these conversations are typically about 12-15 minutes, they may stop earlier if they choose to. If the conversation goes beyond 15 minutes, the researchers will knock on the door, and check if it is OK for the participants to finish the conversation. Video-Recall Interview Immediately following the conversation between the dyad partners, each partner will separately review the video recording of the conversation with one of the researchers. In this procedure, the video is played in one-minute segments. After each segment, the researcher stops the video and asks the participant, “What were you thinking and feeling during that segment?” Follow-up 234 questions may be asked in order to obtain further detail regarding participant thoughts and feelings. For example, the researcher might say: “You have described your feelings related to this – can you tell me more about what you were thinking?” or “Is there anything else you recall about what you were thinking or feeling at that moment?” Debriefing Immediately following the video recall interview, the following individual debriefing is provided. “I want to thank you again for participating in this study. Are there any questions or concerns you have before we finish for today? We will look at the information you have provided in detail over the next month, and then call or email you to schedule a time we can meet to give you our feedback. It is your right to withdraw from the study at any time.” SECOND INTERVIEW At the second interview, each participant meets separately with one of the researchers to receive a 1-2 page narrative summary of the conversation which took place in the first interview session. This narrative summary is written in lay and goal-directed language. The narrative summary is reviewed with the participant and any participant questions are answered. Subsequently, the participants meet together with the two researchers to receive a written joint narrative summary of their conversation and the tentative identification of a joint project that appears to be going on between them. The participants are invited to modify the identified project as they see fit. They are also informed that this project will be followed for the next 4 months by the researchers using separate telephone calls to each of them every two weeks. The participants are asked if there are any further questions and their right to withdraw from the study at any time is noted. MONITORING Each participant is phoned once per month during the 4 month monitoring period by the primary researcher or the research assistant. At the end of the final telephone call, participants will be asked to provide some feedback regarding their experience taking part in the study. For example, the following questions will be asked: “What was it like for you to participate in this study?” “How did taking part in this study impact your relationship with your parent/child?” “What about the study was helpful or not so helpful” Follow-up questions may also be asked at this time in order to facilitate the participant’s elaboration of their experience in the study. In conclusion, participants will be thanked for their help in the study: “At this time, I’d like to thank you for your participation in the study. Your contribution to our research has been very helpful. The information that you have provided will be very helpful to us in understanding the coming out process and role of parent-youth relationships in this process.” 235 Appendix E – Telephone Monitoring Form Contact #:____________________ Date of phone call:____________________ Project #:____________________ Youth or Parent/Guardian (circle one) Conversation warm-up: During our last meeting we came up with the following project for you and (parent/youth): [name the project for the participant]. Is that still the focus of what you are doing together, or has it changed? If it has changed, how has it changed?  Did you have any project-related activities either by yourself or with (parent/youth) since the last time we spoke?  What were the kinds of project-related things you did since the last time we spoke?  What did these activities mean to you in terms of relationship with (parent/youth)?  Have you experienced any barriers in getting to share experiences or talk to (parent/youth) in the past couple of weeks or in getting to the project at all (e.g., too busy, not getting along, etc.)?  Has anything else been going on with your project that we haven’t talked about yet? 236 Appendix F – Within-Case Analysis Template Project: #_________ Context: (Describe the parent, the youth, their life/work situations, other family members, and info regarding cultural background if applicable) First Interview Issues Raised: (What were the topics of the conversation?) Interactional Pattern: (Describe how the participants communicated, e.g., used humor, clarified, interrupted, finished each other’s sentences, shared opinions) Intentions and Purposes: (Summarize participants’ goals. How did each participant contribute to the conversation? What did each participant want to achieve in the conversation? E.g., expressing opinions, processing information, responding to partner, introducing new topics) Participant A (describe): Participant B (describe): Project: (Summarize joint or individual project) Role of A: (Describe the observed role of each participant in the conversation, e.g., sharing information, perspectives, opinions, taking on a dominant or passive role in the conversation) Role of B: 237 Second Interview Response: (How did participants respond to the narrative?) Meanings & Concerns: (Did they ask for any changes? Did they voice any concerns? Did they have any other comments or feedback?) Monitoring Period Summaries Participant A Call #1 Date: Change?: Activities: Meaning: Barriers: Anything else?: Participant B Call #1 Date: Change?: Activities: Meaning: Barriers: Anything else?: Participant A Call #2 Date: Change? Activities: Meaning: Barriers: Anything else? Participant B Call #2 Date: Change? Activities: Meaning: Barriers: Anything else? Participant A Call #3 Date: Change? Activities: Meaning: Barriers: Anything else? Participant B Call #3 Date: Change?: Activities: Meaning: Barriers: Anything else? 238 Participant A Call #4 Date: Change? Activities: Meaning: Barriers: Anything else? Could you please share some feedback on your experience of participating in this project? Participant B Call #4 Date: Change? Activities: Meaning: Barriers: Anything else? Could you please share some feedback on your experience of participating in this project? Overall Analysis Project: [changed or unchanged from first interview?] (Describe overall project) Conceptualization of roles (Describe how the participants communicated/interactional pattern. Describe the observed role of each participant in the project and any changes). Conceptualization of participant A goals: (Describe important or recurring goals of each participant in two conversations. Elaborate by including how they achieved their goals through some major functional steps.) Conceptualization of participant B goals: Strategies participant A: (Describe detailed functional steps/elements each participant was mostly using, e.g., stated opinions, used humor, described past, etc.) Strategies participant B: Emerging Constructs: o Themes in reviewing all we know about this case. 239 Appendix G – Elements for Coding Acknowledges  minimal statements such as um-hmmm  yes, sure, OK, that acknowledges the statement by the other Advises  I think the best idea for you is to get a job in the short term and then think about your educational concerns in the long-term. Agrees  Yes, I agree, That’s true, You’re right, I concur, We see eye to eye. Ambiguous response  Response is unclear, not readily interpretable, has more than one possible meaning, hazy or fuzzy meaning Answers question Apologizes  Sorry, I apologize, Oops, My-bad. Approves  positive evaluative or judging statement (affirms)  It’s a great idea that you’re .  Validates  “That’s fantastic” “It’s good” “It’s fine” Asks for clarification (further explanation or expansion)  Can you tell me more about that?  I’m wondering which of your dilemmas seems to have the most importance for you right now. Can you give me more details about that situation?  Can you expand on that? Asks for confirmation  Am I getting this right?  Is that what you mean?  So, you’ll be here for next week’s appointment? Asks for feeling state  How do you feel about that?  What does it feel like when you ?  Tell me more about that sadness. Asks for information (more factual in nature)  When was it that you moved out of your parents’ home? Asks for justification or reasons  Why was that?  What was your rationale for making that choice? 240 Asks for opinion or belief  What do you think about that?  What do you believe to be the most important aspect of becoming an adult? Asks for speculation or hypothetical scenario (challenges)  What if . . . ?, Let’s say happened?, How do you think you would handle ? Clarifies  Usually in response to asks for clarification. Involves giving more information to clear up an ambiguity or a misinterpretation. Complains  My employer gives me every crappy shift. It ruins my weekend plans. Confirms  So you are coming for dinner tonight. Response to a request for further information. Continues other’s statement  After an interruption  Continues own statement after a pause Demands  Tells the other what to do. Describes future  My mother will be visiting next week. Describes other  It seems to me that you . (is usually used with expresses perception)  It sounds to me that your sister is really trying to work things out with the family.  In the annotation – describe who the “other” is. Describes past  I told my mother that I was grateful for everything she has done for me.  I went to college 5 years ago.  When I was a kid, I was bit by a dog and now I can’t seem to get over it.  I used to hate my brother. Describes possibility or hypothetical situation  If I can’t get into UBC I know I will be disappointed (sometimes used with other codes – i.e. describes self, expresses perception) Describes self  I suck at tennis  I’m a generous person.  It really wasn’t like me to behave that way. 241 Describes situation or event Disagrees (denies) Disapprove  Negative evaluative or judgment statement  “I don’t like them”  “She really should have known better than to behave like that.” Dismissive or diminishing statement  Oh c’mon, Don’t be silly, That’s nonsense.  “Whatever” Elaborates  Extends a previous statement  Provides more information, adds depth to a previous statement, gives a deeper explanation. Encourages  Give confidence, cheer, hearten Evaluative or judging statement  Focused on a phenomenon, or event, or person with approving or disapproving Expresses anger  (irritation, exasperation, rage, disgust, envy, torment)  I was so pissed off with him.  I was furious. Expresses belief or disbelief (concrete as opposed to tentative)  I just know things are going to work out  I don’t believe in God  I can’t believe this is happening to me. Expresses desire  I need, I want, I wish…. Expresses disgust  (usually more of a facial expression, distaste, expression of not liking or loathing)  It totally grossed me out. It was disgusting to be in that cell with all those crack addicts. Expresses dissatisfaction  School isn’t what I thought it would be.  Expression of dissatisfaction.  Sometimes coded with expresses sadness or some other emotion. Expresses doubt  I’m not sure I can handle that.  I doubt I have the ability to get into university.  Questioning, has emotional content  Not about indecisiveness  I don’t know about that, I don’t know if that fits for me (POSSIBLE 242 OTHERS – disagrees, dismissive statement) Expresses fear  (horror, nervousness)  Overwhelmed or expressing a lot of concern. Expresses frustration  It totally sucks that I didn’t get the job I wanted. Expresses gratitude  Thank you. I really appreciate what we are doing here. I’m thankful for this opportunity. Expresses humor  Tells a joke  Says something funny (either intentional or unintentional)  Contextual use of humour, use of wit, lightheartedness, kidding around Expresses joy  happiness, cheerfulness, zest, contentment, pride, optimism, enthrallment, relief Expresses like  liking of idea, object, person; not love Expresses love  (affection, lust, longing) Expresses perception or opinion or hunch (Added April 2007)  It seems to me that you may be quite similar to your dad in that way.  Is usually a tentative statement or interpretation  Correct me if I’m wrong but I think . Expresses realization  I realize that these people are very important to me.  Client expresses an “ah-ha” moment in the present tense.  Wow, I’ve never thought about that before. (add surprise to the code)  “Oh no, really. I hadn’t thought about that consequence before” (add disappointment to the code) Expresses sadness  suffering, disappointment, embarrassment, shame, neglect, regret, sympathy  I was so depressed about it.  I was really hurt when my stepmother attacked me like that. Expresses surprise  more of a facial expression  I was really surprised that she reacted that way.  “Oh wow!” Expresses uncertainty  Is about decision-making. Not being able to sort something out. Not able to accurately predict. 243  I’m not sure.  I can’t decide what option to take. Expresses understanding  I get that. I see where you’re coming from.  That makes sense. I see what you mean. Expresses worry  I’m worried about my exam. Incomplete statement  Can be questions, statements, or sentences. Interrupts Invites or elicits a response  Use of hand gesture to elicit a response from a client.  “You know what I mean?”  “Right?” Laughs Paraphrasing  Repeats previous statement  Repeats a previous statement in your own words Partial agreement  “sort of” – specifying the amount of agreement.  Half hearted agreement, Pause  A break in the sentence or dialogue.  Silence, a pregnant pause. Praises  compliments, admiring remark, accolade, congratulates  “Good for you”. “Look at you!” “Congratulations.” “It’s terrific that you have such great insight” Provides information  You can get an application on-line if you go to the website. Reflects affect  Capturing an image that is beyond what was previously stated  beyond paraphrasing  Advanced empathy, empathy  You felt disappointment when you didn’t get into UBC this year. Reflects cognition  Advanced empathy, empathy  That was a tough situation for you.  “You didn’t think that was the right way to go”  “So you’ve been thinking about a number of career options over the last year” 244 Requests  Asks the person to do something. Asks for  Could you sign this form? States a plan  I’m going to go to school next term  I will be here next week for my appointment Suggests  I’d like to suggest that your father didn’t mean to hurt your feelings. Unintelligible response  Cannot be understood on tape or through transcription
Thesis/Dissertation
eng
Counselling Psychology
Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Graduate
Young, Richard A. (Richard Anthony), 1942-
Sexual and gender minority youth and their parents : identity-related conversations
Text