[adrotate banner="13"]

[feather_share show="twitter, google_plus, facebook, reddit, tumblr" hide="pinterest, linkedin, mail"]

By: Sophie Geffros

The use of trigger warnings in the classroom is not just an accessibility issue; it is also good pedagogical practice.

Both of these statements may shock you. Indeed, given the recent spate of hand-wringing articles by academics regarding their use, one would be forgiven for thinking that “trigger warnings” involved warning a professor before pulling a trigger.

Of course, they’re nothing of the sort. A trigger is a stimulus that produces a disproportionately negative reaction in people with mental health concerns. They are most commonly associated with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and other anxiety disorders, and may describe a stimulus that evokes an individual’s trauma so strongly that they “flash back” and relive the traumatic event in their mind. Although every person has different triggers and a different reaction to exposure, there are some that are more frequent than others. Descriptions of abuse, sexual violence and traumatic injury are all common triggers in people with PTSD.

Alerting students to the contents of the next day’s lecture is already common practice in most classrooms. In my four years at McMaster, I cannot recall ever having been assigned a reading without the professor reminding us to pay particular attention to certain themes or phrasings. Including a warning about the graphic descriptions of rape will not prevent professors from also directing students to pay particular attention to the use of birds in Tess of the d’Ubervilles.

A trigger warning is an academic accommodation that instructors are legally obligated to provide, but the onus should not be on the student to reach out. To begin with, there are many individuals with PTSD symptoms who have not been formally diagnosed. PTSD is very common in individuals who have been sexually or physically abused, and these individuals often do not feel comfortable disclosing their symptoms to a physician, as to do so is also to admit to the abuse. Even individuals with a formal diagnosis may not be comfortable approaching Student Accessibility Services about this, and even fewer will be comfortable speaking with an instructor.

Even if you do choose disclosure, instructors are often unsure of how to react. In my first year, I tentatively approached a philosophy professor who seemed sympathetic. I told him that I had heard from other students that some of the case studies on the syllabus dealt with some distressing issues, and that as a person with PTSD, I would appreciate it if he would give us a warning about the content when he assigned the cases. He frowned thoughtfully, and asked “So PTSD, huh? What happened to you?”

I didn’t know what to say. I still don’t. If anyone has come up with a way to disclose years of sexual abuse and two very serious motor vehicle accidents to a professor without feeling as though you should melt through the floor, I would love to hear it.

That night, I experienced nightmares and flashbacks that were the worst I had experienced since seeking treatment for my PTSD.

Psychiatrists call this phenomenon “retraumatization,” and it is relatively common in people with a trauma history. It can leave a person jittery and anxious for weeks, and may result in significant relapse.

Instructors should consider that warnings for content does nothing to diminish the experiences of the group, and allows many students to learn and engage with the material who would be otherwise unable to. Most students with triggers don’t wish to avoid the material entirely—although if they do, it would be within their rights to ask for an alternate assignment—but instead wish to be given sufficient time to prepare themselves. They may discuss the content with a friend or counselor, or they simply may make sure that they are in a safe place and positive state of mind when they choose to engage with it. Regardless of their choices, the provision of a warning will drastically improve their academic experience.

A university should provide an environment that is safe and accessible for all students, regardless of their disability status or life experience. If providing a trigger warning can make the difference between a student engaging with the material or being unable to, I fail to see how an educator can refuse to provide the necessary accommodation.

[feather_share show="twitter, google_plus, facebook, reddit, tumblr" hide="pinterest, linkedin, mail"]

[adrotate banner="12"]

On Jan. 28, Bell once again completed another successful “Let’s Talk” campaign, working to challenge the stigma associated with mental illness, and add to the $67.5 million they have already raised in support of mental health initiatives across Canada.

While anyone who advocates for mental health issues will tell you Bell is making a positive change, its efforts are far from perfect. If Bell truly wants to effect change in society and tear down the barriers experienced by sufferers of mental illness, they cannot limit themselves to focusing their efforts on combating “stigma” alone, as this wording neglects the systemic discrimination that those with mental illnesses experience.

To those unfamiliar, stigma and discrimination might seem interchangeable, but they actually have important differences. Stigma is the negative stereotype a person receives, and discrimination is the behaviour that results from this stereotype. This distinction might seem small, but language is powerful and subtle differences can drastically change something’s meaning.

In the case of Bell’s “Let’s Talk” by outlining “anti-stigma” and not “anti-discrimination” as one of their campaign’s four pillars, it undervalues and potentially ignores the existence of mental health discrimination. By only ever using the word “stigma,” and basing your entire campaign around it, you are effectively presenting the idea that those with mental health disabilities may face many negative stereotypes, but they experience little or no actual behavioural consequences. For a campaign that explicitly describes how “language matters” on its second page, it seriously fails to acknowledge the importance of this distinction.

This choice of wording and its resulting popularity becomes incredibly problematic when you read reports like those made by the Ontario Human Rights Commission on Nov. 7, 2012.  The OHRC surveyed 1,500 people in Ontario, and found repeated examples of laws that actively allowed for discrimination against those with mental health disabilities. These examples included multiple accounts from sufferers who had been denied housing, employment and even medical care because of their mental health.

One example from the report says that significant research exists that supports the fact that many private landlords deny housing to people with mental health disabilities. The report cited multiple sufferers who were forced to sign contracts that stated that if their condition worsened, they would be evicted from their residence.

One victim even describes intense discrimination within the healthcare system: “after surgery, my surgeon told me, ‘had I known you were crazy, I wouldn’t have operated on you.’”

These examples reflect only some of the harsh discrimination those with mental illnesses face, and yet Bell and others advocating for mental health issues limit their discussion and focus to combating stigma alone.

It’s easy to see a simple choice of words as a relatively minor issue, but the difference between “stigma” and “discrimination” is a deeper issue than a mistaken campaign by Bell. If you don’t believe me, take a second to consider how other issues of prejudice in our society are described. When discussing racism, sexism, or homophobia, discrimination is the word of choice. However, when describing mental illness, “stigma” is the overwhelmingly popular term.

Don’t believe me? Try typing the word “stigma” into Google. You’ll find page after page discussing mental health issues, and a list of related searches pertaining to that same subject. Try that again with the word “discrimination.” Here the examples address race, homophobia, and human rights concerns, with no mention of mental health even after five pages. It quickly becomes clear that Bell’s decision to use the word “stigma” instead of “discrimination” reflects a much larger cultural issue.

I’m not the only one who feels this way. In fact, the very first resource Bell directs you to is a document from the Canadian Mental Health Association. Within the second paragraph the CMHA makes it clear that they have the same concerns:

“The problem with the word ‘stigma’ is that it puts the focus on the person’s difference instead of on the people who are setting them apart. Using the word stigma makes it seem different than racism, homophobia or sexism. It isn’t. So it’s time to talk about stigma for what it really is: prejudice and discrimination.”

Even organizations directly supporting the campaign feel it is crucial to distinguish the problematic nature of the word “stigma,” and yet Bell remains one of the many that make no such effort.

So why is it people seem to be uncomfortable with associating “discrimination” with mental illness? Do we really believe not receiving medical treatment because of one’s race is that different from not receiving it because of one’s mental health disability? While it’s pointless to compare whether one type of discrimination is worse than another, it’s unsettling to see that we as a society seem intent on labelling mental health as a separate issue, to the point where it even has its own distinct terminology.

We as Canadians need to aim higher than simply combating the stigma surrounding mental illness, and must work to remove the systemic barriers to success that exist for those affected by mental illness.

If Bell really wants to get people talking, ask Canadians why they’re so afraid to acknowledge mental health discrimination that they won’t even use the same words.

Anyone who has ever had a roommate has probably encountered that awkward moment when you want a little “private time” but your roommate is either in the room or in close proximity to it. When the mood hits and I want to settle down with one of my vibrators, I often find myself focused on where my roommate is and whether or not she can hear the buzzing, rather than the pleasantries going on between my legs.

I’m not a prude at all, but since childhood, I, and most other women, have been inundated with the paradox that women are simultaneously supposed to be sexual beings and lack sexual knowledge. These ideas have somehow manifested themselves in the way that women masturbate. I’m speaking directly about women because a) it’s harder for women who use toys to be quiet compared to men who prefer manual stimulation and b) men have fewer sexual expectations thrust upon them (no pun intended). We have all had that childhood conversation about masturbating where one or more of your friends denied ever doing it, claiming that it was gross, while those same conversations in groups of male friends resulted in high fives and trading secrets.

Why? I personally love orgasms and masturbating. Being a lesbian, getting in touch with my body allows me to be better in bed. It also allows me to feel more confident about myself. The more comfortable I am with all parts of my body, the less shame I feel about it. I own six vibrators, and one of my favourite places to go shopping is an adult store. For me, buying a new sex toy is like Christmas morning, but the fear of my roommate overhearing me masturbate really puts a damper on the whole hot and bothered mood.

It’s time to put the shame to bed, turn up the vibrator to the highest speed, and moan away. If you’re a vocal person, it can be hard to feel comfortable when you don’t live alone, but not accepting this taboo that has been forced on us is the first step towards satisfaction. It’s hard to completely let loose and enjoy yourself when you have one ear on the other side of the door. If you do find it hard to get off when your roommate or parents are home, try the shower, non-battery-operated toys, or go old-school and get reintroduced to your hand.

Solo time should be between you, your body, and whatever medium you decide. Clit stimulator, rabbit, suction dildo, g-spot vibrator, external, internal, bullet, whatever your vibrator preferences are, I hope that you’ll let it buzz loud and proud and have the orgasm of your life.

By: Ronald Leung

 

What’s the first thought that pops into your mind when someone mentions “mental illness”? A balding creature cackling to himself about his precious, an eerily-calm psychiatrist with a cannibalistic streak, or leather-faced chainsaw-wielding inbreds?  These images come from the media that surrounds us and, as unfortunate as this result, is where we get most of our perceptions – quite often subconsciously. We see something on our screen or in our pages and it marinates in our mind before it becomes a part of what we see and how we think. It’s not surprising that media portrayals of mental illness are not only false but also excessively negative. It’s difficult not to whip up the drama and details of the most gruesome murder of the year – that’s how you get more viewership. What’s worse is that news stories rarely ever contain the opinion of a person with a mental illness. It’s often only law enforcement or a health professional speaking on behalf of them, which leads to the perception that people with mental illness are unable of developing opinions or speaking on their own behalf.

Mental illness is often used as a weapon in the entertainment industry. It’s quite sad that a true and devastating sickness can be battered and manipulated into becoming not only a social stigma, but a grotesque or villainous character. A recent study showed that 72.1% of adult characters on television who were depicted as mentally ill, injured or killed others. In general, characters that were mentally ill were 10 times more violent than their co-stars. It’s not surprising that the reality is completely different. The majority of crime, about 95-97%, is committed by people with no mental illness. This huge difference between fiction and fact is feeding the negative rap that mental illness receives.

Not only is the problem located in the frequency that mental illness is displayed in the media, but also the method of portrayal. The most common stereotypical depictions of people with mental illnesses are rebellious free spirit, violent seductress, narcissistic parasite, mad scientist, sly manipulator, helpless/depressed female and comedic relief. The problem here is that these characters often have no identity outside of their “crazy” behavior – their mental illness becomes their one and only label. It becomes the point where the mental illness is the character’s main personality traits and the illness is the only way that character can be possibly defined.

There is also the tendency to automatically associate mental illness with simple-mindedness. In prime-time TV drama, more than 43% of mentally ill characters did not understand everyday adult roles and were often portrayed as lost and confused. These characters also spoke in very simple terms and grammar, and were also often shown to be helpless and dishevelled. Almost always they were poor and homeless in addition to being held by police for crimes that had little understanding or remembrance about.

The reality is that mental illness can strike anywhere and anyone – whether you are a student, professional, or retiree. However, the media depicts mental illness as something separate from general society. People who are mentally ill are often shown to be unemployed without family, friends or unrelated personal history. Mental illness does not discriminate against class, age, or popularity. The continued depiction of people with mental illnesses as separate from general society is just a continuation in describing them as almost subhuman. The fact that homelessness is commonly associated with mental illness perpetuates the impression that people with mental illness are dependent on others or that mental illness causes homelessness, especially since a discussion of the broader systemic issues that lead to homelessness is lacking. This view contributes to the picture that individuals with a psychiatric diagnosis are incapable of being productive members of society.

Not only is the perception of individuals who are mentally ill warped and twisted but the depiction of treatments and patient facilities is also often untrue. How many movies have you seen with the cold empty asylums filled with screaming patients and nurses wearing white starch-stiff uniforms? The inaccurate and unflattering stereotypes of the psychiatric profession misinforms the public and undermines the credibility of mental health care practitioners. In the media, mental health professionals were often show to be neurotic, ineffectual, mentally ill themselves, comically inept, self-absorbed, drug-addicted, foolish or outright idiotic. These portrayals reinforce the idea that helping others requires little skill or expertise. It’s not surprising that less than 33% of mentally ill patients in Canada seek professional health – depictions of mentally health practitioners as exploitative and mentally unstable do irreparable harm to people who are already hesitant to seek treatment.

Mental illness is not a violent death sentence, nor is it an outlier that only occurs to the homeless and people on the fringe of society. It is a common occurrence that is nothing to be ashamed of – despite what the media thinks. Ignoring the elephant in the room will not make it go away. Only by admitting to it will any true change happen.

Examining stigma on bisexuality from both ends of the sexuality spectrum

Biphobia: let’s talk about it. Loosely defined as an aversion towards bisexuality and bisexual people as individuals, biphobia is a concept that’s not too well understood, nor talked about enough. In recent years, the topic of sexuality has been a highly discussed topic, with the idea of free love becoming more and more accepted in the world today. 

The introduction of 2SLGBTQIA+ characters in books, television and film has led to an increase in representation of the community, making it a lot easier for the community to live than it has been in the past. Though some people think that the entirety of the 2SLGBTQIA+ community is fully integrated, it’s still not an equal place for all members and among one of the more misunderstood members of this community are the individuals within the “B”; Bisexuals. 

Though in recent years the population has gained a higher understanding for homosexuality, popular culture has fed into the idea that sexuality is a binary choice, essentially meaning that a person can only be attracted to one gender at once. Historically, bisexuality was dismissed as a “secondary sexuality”, implying that bisexual people were either closeted gay/lesbian individuals trying to appear “heterosexual”, or a heterosexual person “going through a phase”. 

Contrary to popular belief, biphobia can be experienced within the 2SLGBTQIA+ community just as much as within the heterosexual community. Oftentimes, bisexuals are labelled as trying to escape oppression by conforming to social expectations of sexuality and love, leaving them to be viewed as “not real” members of the 2SLGBTQIA+ community, because they are “straight-passing”.  

A substantial issue is that bisexual men are either assumed to be gay or homophobic, increasing the want to conform to being either hetero or homosexual. This is pretty substantial and is supported through research, as a 2013 report by the Pew Research Center confirmed that only 12% of bisexual American males are ‘out’.  

Along with this, bisexual women are fetishised, or said to be attention-seeking. This can be heavily seen through the experience of Megan Barton-Hansen, a bisexual competitor on Love Island. Instead of allowing her to freely explore and publicize her sexuality, internet users were quick to announce their beliefs that she was just “playing” her bisexuality and would ultimately end up with a man. 

This bi-erasure is also seen in other celebrities, namely pop icon Lady Gaga. Lady Gaga is an openly bisexual woman. She’s spoken out about her sexuality more than once and revealed that her song ‘Poker Face’ is about her own personal experience with her sexuality. But through this, her sexuality is often ignored and she’s been accused of lying more than once about it. The Grammy Awards have even named Sam Smith as “the first [2SLGBTQIA+] person to win Best Pop Vocal Album”, even though Lady Gaga has already previously won that title. 

“I may not, to some people, be considered a part of [the 2SLGBTQIA+] community, even though I like girls sometimes,” said Gaga to a group of people at 2019 World Pride in New York.

Pop singer Halsey has had similar experiences, with critics of her music video for her song ‘Strangers’ stating that the video was not queer enough. “It literally is a bisexual story . . . [Luna’s] relationship with a man doesn’t nullify her bisexuality. Not in an imaginary music video universe and not in real life either,” said Halsey on Twitter.

Bisexual representation in film and television is something that we need to discuss too. In 2018, the British Film Institute argued that bisexuals aren’t often explored in film and this is something that must be amended. Though television has had a better run with representation with characters such as Oberyn Martell (Game of Thrones), Callie Torres (Grey’s Anatomy), Frank Underwood (House of Cards), Rosa Diaz (Brooklyn Nine-Nine) and Annalise Keating (How to Get Away with Murder). There is still a lot of work to be done in ensuring that bisexuality is represented in the media and it is done without propagating any further stigma. 

It’s been found that the constant marginalization that bisexual individuals face has had negative impacts on their physical health. A 2013 Pew Research Center report found that bisexuals have higher rates of anxiety and depressive disorders than straight and gay people; are at a higher likelihood for youth risk behavior; are more likely to develop eating disorders; heart disease and take up drinking or smoking and are less likely to feel very accepted in the workplace. Biphobia and bi-erasure is real and it can lead to serious physical harm of people within this community. 

Bisexuality cannot be ignored when same-sex couples are not featured. Being with someone of the opposite gender does not make a person ‘straight’ and featuring a bisexual person in a relationship with the opposite sex does not make them any less queer. Given that a lot of people cannot come out to their families as bisexual without being told that it is simply a phase, we need to fight for ensuring that bisexuality, alongside all other sexualities and gender identities within the 2SLGBTQIA+ community, is treated with the respect and acceptance that it deserves.

Unlearning and breaking the stigma associated with the bisexual identity

Being a member of the 2SLGBTQIA+ community is hard. A large part of your identity is under near-constant scrutiny. What is usually considered a private aspect of your life becomes a matter of public discourse. Bisexuality can be understood as an umbrella term, encompassing several more specific identities related to sexuality. As someone who falls under this umbrella term, I have experienced discrimination for my sexuality from loved ones and strangers.

I am a non-binary, bisexual person in a relationship with a cisgender heterosexual man. I only mention that I am non-binary because I was assigned female at birth and am often perceived as such. Being perceived as a woman is troubling at times, but it has taught me a lot about biphobia in cis-heteronormative and 2SLGBTQIA+ spaces. 

When I am out with my partner, no one gives us a second glance because we seem just like any other heterosexual couple. That is not the truth. Our relationship is inherently queer because I am queer.

Regardless of which space I am in, I often get the same reaction when I tell people I am bisexual and in a relationship with a man. It is along the lines of, “so, you are basically straight then”. Not only does this belittle and disregard a large part of my identity, but it also does so for every bisexual person out there in seemingly heterosexual relationships. 

A similar reaction is experienced by bisexual people in same-sex relationships, along the lines of, “so, you are basically gay then”. Either way, the bisexual identity is erased to cater to black or white ways of thinking, which appease both heteronormative and homonormative ideals.

As I have only been in serious relationships with men, I spoke to some bisexual friends and explored 2SLGBTQIA+ communities online to learn more about this sort of reaction. I was horrified to discover that the same black or white way of thinking is also applied to bisexual people within 2SLGBTQIA+ spaces. I could not stop thinking about how bisexual people are isolated by the same community that is meant to include them. 

The sheer shock I felt when I first learned how contested the bisexual identity is in all spaces has not dissipated. I had always expected pushback from cis-heteronormative society, but I am appalled that many bisexual people still are not accepted by 2SLGBTQIA+ spaces. As far as I can recall, the “B” in 2SLGBTQIA+ stands for bisexual. 

I often hesitate to tell people I am bisexual or to tell those who know, that I am in a relationship with a cis heterosexual man. I wish that I, and other bisexual people, did not have to feel uneasy about sharing a part of themselves. Discrimination on any basis, including someone’s sexuality, is an archaic action from a bygone era. It’s time to accept others for who they are and make an active effort to make sure people do not feel alienated from the spaces meant to include them. It’s time to say bye to biphobia.