CHAPTER 14:

GENDER AND THE

ISSUES ON SOGIE
Group 9:
VANESSA AYUSTE
CIELO DALAGAN
YELYN DONASCO
AT THE END OF THE CHAPTER, THE
STUDENTS ARE EXPECTED TO:

DISCUSS THE SIGNIFICANT

EVENTS THAT LED TO THE
CREATION OF THE SOGIE LAW;

DETERMINE THE IMPORTANCE

OF THE SOGIE LAW ; AND

OBSERVE THE PROVISSION

STATED IN THE NEWLY
IMPLEMENTED SOGIE.

LETS GET STARTED

TRY TO RECALL THESE UNFORGETABLE NEWS INCIDENT THAT HUGGED THE
TIMELIGHT FOR WEEKS AND MONTHS :

1. In 2004, 26-years-old transwoman Jennifer Laude was drowned to death by an American

marine.
2. in 2015, a night club in Taguig City denied entry to some transwoman due to its “ NO
CROSSDRESSER ALLOWED POLICY”.
3. In 2019, transwoman Gretchen Custodia Diez was disallowed to use a woman’s comfort room
in a Cubao Mall.

THE ABOVE EVENTS HAVE FURTHER STRENGTHENED TO PUSH THE SENATE BILL
NO.689 OR AN ACT PROHIBITNG DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF SEXUAL
ORIENTATION AND GENDER IDENTETIY OR EXPRESSION (SOGIE) AND PROVIDING
PENALTIES THEREFOR.

Reports show persons a diverse SOGIE suffer from harassment and assault, the effects of which range
from psychological trauma to physical injuries and even death. While disaggregated data on case are
not available, anecdotal evidence from Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) communities
show that victims such crime face difficulties in obtaining redress due to prejudicial attitudes by
service providers. some also experience being targeted on account of their being transgender by law
enforcers, being victim-blamed in rape case by officers of court and police officers.
 THE PASSAGE OF THE SOGIE EQUALITY BILL PROVIEDS
PROTECTION TO THE MEMBER OF THE THE LGBT COMMUNITY
AND GUARANTIES THEIR RIGHTS AS CITIZEN OF THE REPUBLIC
ACT OF THE PHILIPPINES AND THEIR RIGHTS AS HUMAN BEINGS.

THE SOGIE EQUALITY BILL PROTECTS PEOPLE FROM DISCRIMANATION ACTS

SUCH AS:

1. Denial of access to public service

2. Including SOGIE as a criteria for hiring or dismissal of works
3. Refusing admission or expelling students in school based on
SOGIE
4. Imposing disciplinary actions that are harsher than customary
due to the student’s SOGIE.
5. Refusing or revoking accreditation of organizations based on
the SOGIE of the members
6. denying access to health service
7. Denying the application licenses and similar documents
8. Denying access to establishments, facilities, and service, open
to the general public
9. Forcing a person to undertake any medical or psychological
examination to determine on alter one’s SOGIE
 THE SOGIE EQUALITY BILL PROTECTS PEOPLE FROM DISCRIMANATION ACTS
SUCH AS:

10. Harassment committed by persons involved in law

enforcement
11. Publishing information intended to “out” or reveal the
SOGIE of a person without concern
12. Engaging in public speech which intends to shame or
ridicule LGBTQ_+ PERSON
13. Subjecting person to harassment motivated by the
offender’s bias against the offended party’s SOGIE, which may
come in the form of any medium, including telecommunication
and social media.
14. Subjecting any person to gender profiling
15. Preventing a child under parental authority from
expressing one’s SOGIE, by inflicting or threatening to inflict
bodily or physical harm or by causing mental or emotional
suffering.
 STATEMENT OF THE PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES
ON NON-DISCRIMINATION
BASED ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY AND EXPRESSION

Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender ((LGBT) Filipinos

continue to experience stigma, prejudice, and discrimination
in the Philippines society. This stigma is manifested in actions
such as bullying, teasing and harassment of LGBT children and
adolescent in families schools and communities; media
portrayal of LGBT as a frivolous, untrustworthy and even
dangerous or predatory: pigeonholding LGBT Filipinos into
particularly limited roles and occupations; or curtailing their
rights to participate in the political sphere.
The Psychological Association of the Philippines (PAP) aligns itself with
the global initiatives to remove the stigma of mental illness that has
long been associated with diverse sexualities and to promote the
wellbeing of LGBT people. Moreover, the PAP code of ethics (2010) is
clear in its stance against discrimination. Filipino Psychologist are called
upon to recognize the unique worth and inherent dignity of all human
beings; and to respect the diversity among persons and peoples
(Principle L a, and b). This means that Filipino psychologist should not
discriminate against or demean persons based on actual or perceive
differences in characteristics including gender identities and sexual
orientation (Ethica Standards III-A and C; V-B,8.). In order to eliminate
stigma, discrimination and violence against LGBT an the PAP resolves to
support efforts for:

1. Oppose all public and private discrimination on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, and expressions.
2. Repeal discriminatory laws and policies, and support the passage of legislation at the local and national levels that protect the ights
and promote the welfare of people of all sexual orientations and gender identities and .
3. Eliminate all forms of prejudice and discrimination against LGBT’s teaching, research, psychological interventions, assessment and
other psychological programs
4. Encourage psychological research that addresses the needs and concerns of LGBT Filipino and their families and communities.
5. Disseminate and apply accurate and evidence-based information about sexual orientation and gender identity and expression to
design intervention that foster mental health and well-being of LGBT Filipinos.
READING 2: WIDESPREAD DISCRIMINATION
CONTINUES TO SHAPE LGBT PEOPLE’S LIVES IN BOTH
SUBTLE AND SIGNIFICANT WAYS

BY: SEJAL SINGH*

1 in 4 LGBT people reports experiencing discrimination in
2016

Over the past decade, the nation has made unprecedented

progress toward LGBT equality. But to date, neither the
federal government nor most states have explicit
statutory nondiscrimination laws protecting people on the
basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. LGBT
people still face widespread discrimination: Between 11
percent and 28 percent of LGB workers report losing a
promotion simply because of their sexual orientation, and
27 percent of transgender workers report being fired, not
hired, or denied a promotion in the past year.
Discrimination also routinely affects LGBT people beyond
the workplace, sometimes costing them their homes,
access to education, and even the ability to engage in
public life.
Data from a nationally representative survey of LGBT people conducted by CAP shows that 25.2
percent of LGBT respondents has experienced discrimination because of their sexual orientation or
gender identity in the past year. The January 2017 survey shows that, despite progress, in 2016
discrimination remained a widespread threat to LGBT people’s well-being, health, and economic
security.
Among people who experienced sexual orientation- or gender-identity-based discrimination in the
past year:
68.5 percent reported that discrimination at least somewhat negatively affected their
psychological well-being.
43.7 percent reported that discrimination negatively impacted their physical well-being.
47.7 percent reported that discrimination negatively impacted their spiritual well-being.
38.5 percent reported discrimination negatively impacted their school environment.
52.8 percent reported that discrimination negatively impacted their work environment.
56.6 report it negatively impacted their neighborhood and community environment.
Unseen harms
LGBT people who don’t experience overt discrimination, such as being fired from a
job, may still find that the threat of it shapes their lives in subtle but profound
ways. David M.,* a gay man, works at a Fortune 500 company with a formal, written
nondiscrimination policy. “I couldn’t be fired for being gay,” he said. But David went
on to explain, “When partners at the firm invite straight men to squash or drinks,
they don’t invite the women or gay men. I’m being passed over for opportunities
that could lead to being promoted.”
“I’m trying to minimize the bias against me by changing my presentation in the
corporate world,” he added. “I lower my voice in meetings to make it sound less
feminine and avoid wearing anything but a black suit. … When you’re perceived as
feminine—whether you’re a woman or a gay man—you get excluded from
relationships that improve your career.”
David is not alone. Survey findings and related interviews show that LGBT people
hide personal relationships, delay health care, change the way they dress, and take
other steps to alter their lives because they could be discriminated against.
Maria S.,* a queer woman who lives in North Carolina, described a long commute
from her home in Durham to a different town where she works. She makes the
drive every day so that she can live in a city that’s friendly to LGBT people. She
loves her job, but she’s not out to her boss. “I wonder whether I would be let go if
the higher-ups knew about my sexuality,” she says.
CAP’s research shows that stories such as Maria’s and David’s are common. The
below table shows the percentage of LGBT people who report changing their lives
in a variety of ways in order to avoid discrimination.
As Table 1 shows, LGBT people who’ve experienced discrimination in the
past year are significantly more likely to alter their lives for fear of
discrimination, even deciding where to live and work because of it,
suggesting that there are lasting consequences for victims of discrimination.
Yet findings also support the contention that LGBT people do not need to
have experienced discrimination in order to act in ways that help them avoid
it, which is in line with empirical evidence on a component of minority stress
theory: expectations of rejection.
Not only can threatened discrimination bar LGBT people from living
authentically—it can also deny them material opportunities. Rafael J.,* a gay
student in California, told CAP that he “decided to apply to law schools only
in LGBT-safe cities or states,” denying him the opportunity pursue his
graduate education at schools he might otherwise have applied to. “I did not
think I would be safe being an openly gay man,” he said. “Especially a gay
man of color, in some places.”
Unique vulnerabilities in the workplace
Within the LGBT community, people who were vulnerable to discrimination
across multiple identities reported uniquely high rates of avoidance
behaviors.
In particular, LGBT people of color were more likely to hide their sexual
orientation and gender identity from employers, with 12 percent removing
items from their resumes—in comparison to 8 percent of white LGBT
respondents—in the past year. Similarly, 18.7 percent of 18- to 24-year-old
LGBT respondents reported removing items from their resumes—in
comparison to 7.9 percent of 35- to 44-year-olds. Meanwhile, 15.5 percent of
disabled LGBT respondents reported removing items from their resume—in
comparison to 7.3 percent of nondisabled LGBT people. This finding may
reflect higher rates of unemployment among people of color, disabled
people, and young adults; it may also reflect that LGBT people who could
also face discrimination on the basis of their race, youth, and disability feel
uniquely vulnerable to being denied a job due to discrimination, or a
combination of factors.
Unique vulnerabilities in the public square
Discrimination, harassment, and violence against LGBT people—especially transgender people—has always been common in places of public accommodation, such as hotels,
restaurants, or government offices. The 2015 United States Transgender Survey found that, among transgender people who visited a place of public accommodation where staff knew
or believed they were transgender, nearly one in three experienced discrimination or harassment—including being denied equal services or even being physically attacked.
In March 2016, then Gov. Pat McCrory signed North Carolina H.B. 2 into law, which mandated anti-transgender discrimination in single-sex facilities—and began an unprecedented
attack on transgender people’s access to public accommodations and ability to participate in public life. That year, more than 30 bills specifically targeting transgender people’s
access to public accommodations were introduced in state legislatures across the country. This survey asked transgender respondents whether they had avoided places of public
accommodation from January 2016 through January 2017, during a nationwide attack on transgender people’s rights. Among transgender survey respondents:
25.7 percent reported avoiding public places such as stores and restaurants, versus 9.9 percent of cisgender LGB respondents
10.9 percent reported avoiding public transportation, versus 4.1 percent of cisgender LGB respondents
11.9 percent avoided getting services they or their family needed, versus 4.4 percent of cisgender LGB respondents
26.7 percent made specific decisions about where to shop, versus 6.6 percent of cisgender LGB respondents
These findings suggest that ongoing discrimination in public accommodations pushes transgender people out of public life, making it harder for them to access key services, use
public transportation, or simply go to stores or restaurants without fear of discrimination.
Disabled LGBT people were also significantly more likely to avoid public places than their nondisabled LGBT counterparts. Among disabled LGBT survey respondents, in the past year:
20.4 percent reported avoiding public places such as stores and restaurants, versus 9.1 percent of nondisabled LGBT respondents
8.8 percent reported avoiding public transportation, versus 3.6 percent of nondisabled LGBT respondents
14.7 percent avoided getting services they or their family needed, versus 2.9 percent of nondisabled LGBT respondents
25.7 percent made specific decisions about where to shop, versus 15.4 percent of nondisabled LGBT respondents
This is likely because, in addition to the risk of anti-LGBT harassment and discrimination, LGBT people with disabilities contend with inaccessible public spaces. For example, many
transit agencies fail to comply with Americans with Disabilities Act, or ADA, requirements that would make public transportation accessible to people with visual and cognitive
disabilities.
Unique vulnerabilities in health care
Unique vulnerabilities in health care
In 2010, more than half of LGBT people reported being discriminated against by a health care providers and more than 25
percent of transgender respondents reported being refused medical care outright. Since then, LGBT people have gained
protections from health care discrimination—most notably, regulations stemming from the Affordable Care Act, or ACA,
have prohibited federally funded hospitals, providers, and insurers from discriminating against LGBT patients. Despite
progress, LGBT people, and transgender people in particular, remain vulnerable to healthcare discrimination: In 2015, one-
third of transgender people who saw a health care provider reported “at least one negative experience related to being
transgender.” These negative experiences included being refused treatment or even being physically assaulted.
Transgender people of color and people with disabilities reported particularly high rates of discrimination from health care
providers.
Unsurprisingly, people in these vulnerable groups are especially likely to avoid doctor’s offices, postponing both
preventative and needed medical care:
23.5 percent of transgender respondents avoided doctors’ offices in the past year, versus 4.4 percent of cisgender LGB
respondents
13.7 percent of disabled LGBT respondents avoided doctors’ offices in the past year, versus 4.2 percent of nondisabled
LGBT respondents
10.3 percent of LGBT people of color avoided doctors’ offices in the past year, versus 4.2 percent of white LGBT
respondents
These findings are consistent with research that has also identified patterns of health care discrimination against people
of color and disabled people. For example, one survey of health care practices in five major cities found that more than
one in five practices were inaccessible to patients who used wheelchairs.
A call to action
To ensure that federal civil rights laws explicitly protect LGBT people, Congress should
pass the Equality Act, a comprehensive bill banning discrimination based on sexual
orientation and gender identity in employment, public accommodations, housing, credit,
and federal funding, among other provisions. Likewise, state and local governments
should pass comprehensive nondiscrimination protections for all. Comprehensive
nondiscrimination protections have more support from voters than ever before: A
majority in every state in the country support nondiscrimination laws.
While comprehensive nondiscrimination protections won’t prevent all instances of
discrimination, they are a critical way to hold employers and landlords accountable.
Additionally, they send the message that LGBT people are both accepted and respected
by all levels of government. LGBT people deserve the opportunity to live full, equal, and
authentic lives—and that won’t be possible while discrimination remains a looming
threat to LGBT people and their families.
*Authors’ note: All names have been changed out of respect for interviewees’ privacy.
Reading 3:Impact on
psychological wellbeing among
lesbian, gay, bisexual,
transgender, and queer
communities
by: Alex Sin Wing chan
Mental health entails a positive relationship with people and the pursuit of productive
and fulfilling existence. It has been shown that those who have a high level of mental
health tend to be more energetic and pleasant lives (chan et al, 2021) , Owing to their
heightened likelihood of experiencing psychological challenges, LGBTQ adolescent are
among the most disadvantage population in the community (Detrine & Lease,2007;
McGlashan & Fitzpatrick, 2017). New Zealand has an estimated 8% of LGB adolescent,
the United States has an estimated 7-8% of LGB adolescent (Wilson et, al,. 2014(.

According to Aranmolate et al. (2017), LGBTQ adolescents’ psychological health

difficulties are associated with a lack of familial recognition and experiences of
harassment. They are more likely than their sexual counterparts to encounter violent
conditions at home and in larger community, and are exposed to over and effect on
psychological wellbeing (Bertrand et al, 2005; Matebeni et al 2018; Simon * Russell,
2021).
The rising likelihood of psychological health problems among LGBTQ adolescents is a result of
increased social stress., which includes stigma, discrimination, bias, and victimization.
Adolescent is a crucial period in cognitive growth, with elivated impact o pressure on
psychological wellbeing susceptibility to substance use (Tavarez 2020; Fulginti al, 2021) . At this
critical juncture, experiencing internalizing victimization as a consequence of discrimination,
transphobia, or biphobia, will create substantial mental difficulties for LGBTQ adolescent
(Budge et al, 2020; Formby & Donovan; 2020) Marginalization, loneliness, alienation, and lack of
suppotive grown-ups and spaces all contributed to social tensiort among LGBTQ adolescent
(Grossman et al, 2009 Hateez et al, 2017)
 THE SUPPORTIVE STRATEGIES FOR
INCLUSIVE SCHOOLS
OUR TEAM
Adolescent is a traditional stage during which adolescents discover their
identity, and for LGBT adolescent, it is also the period during which they
gain an awareness of their own gender identity and sexual
preferences(Prock & Kenny, 2020), recognition by support communities is a
powerful prevention mechanism for adolescent( Call et LGBTQ children
and tal, 2021). A LGBTQ- friendly climate has a professional impact on their
psychological development and well-being. Perception of social
integration with grown up a telo LGBT adolescents overcome challenges,
especially during the precarious developmental phase when they are
developing their sense of self (prouxz et al, 2019).
THE SUPPORTIVE STRATEGIES FOR INCLUSIVE SCHOOLS
The interaction between a persoon and his or her environment affects personal
growth and development according of suicidal behavior among to the social
ecological model, The risk LGBTQ adolescent is influenced by acotextual factors
including schools.
Having a supportive school environment and a sense of belonging to school were
associated with lower levels of majority stress and better academic result , health and
well-being among LGBTQ students (Denny et..a 2016, Perales & Campbell, 2020).

More inclusive policies could contribute to the school climate at the marco level.
These policies include anti-discrimination policies (Woodford et al,. 2018) and anti-
homophobic bullying policies (Konichi et al., 2013).
Gay-straight alliance (GSAs) has been one of the major sources of support in high
schools in the United States and Canada. GSAs are student led , school based clubs
that aim to provide a safe environment in the school context for LGBTQ students, as
well as their straight allies (Toomey et el., 2011).
THAT’S ALL
THANK YOU