1

4 Navigating Safe Spaces: The Lived Campus Realities of Non-Binary

5 Students in Higher Education

7 Sharliz Yvette N. Biniahan

8 Cynthia Ross C. Nasingao

9 Louise Mae D. Teofilo

10

11

12 College of Arts and Humanities, Benguet State University

13 COM 200A: Thesis 1

14

15 Revin Xavier Ignacio

16

17 October 2025
18 Approval Sheet

19

20 Republic of The Philippines

21 BENGUET STATE UNIVERSITY
22 La Trinidad, Benguet

23

24 COLLEGE OF ARTS AND HUMANITIES

25
26
27 This thesis proposal, titled TITLE OF PROPOSAL, prepared and submitted
28 by SHARLIZ YVETTE N. BINIAHAN, CYNTHIA ROSS C. NASINGAO, and
29 LOUISE MAE D. TEOFILO in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree
30 of BACHELOR OF ARTS IN COMMUNICATION is hereby accepted.
31
32
33 SHARLIZ YVETTE N. BINIAHAN CYNTHIA ROSS C. NASINGAO

34 Member Member

35 Date Signed: ______________ Date Signed: ______________

36

37 LOUISE MAE D. TEOFILO

38 Member

39 Date Signed: _________________

40
41
42
43 REVIN XAVIER IGNACIO
44 Adviser

45 Date Signed: __________________

ii
46 Table of Contents

47 Approval Sheet.................................................................................................................. ii
48 Table of Contents............................................................................................................. iii
49 Background of the Study ................................................................................................ iii
50 Theoretical Framework ............................................................................................... 12
51 Conceptual Framework .............................................................................................. 14
52 Statement of the Problem .......................................................................................... 18
53 Literature Review ............................................................................................................ 20
54 Methodology ................................................................................................................... 23
55 Research Design ......................................................................................................... 23
56 Population and Locale ................................................................................................ 23
57 Data Gathering Instruments....................................................................................... 24
58 Data Gathering Procedures ....................................................................................... 24
59 Treatment of Data ........................................................................................................ 25
60 Ethical Considerations ............................................................................................... 25
61 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 25
62 INTERVIEW GUIDE ...................................................................................................... 39
63

64

65

66

67
68

69

iii
70 Background of the Study

71 An academic environment is expected to advance a level of inclusivity, equality and

72 intellectual freedom. Unfortunately, claims of inclusivity for many LGBTQ+ students are

73 undermined by discrimination, marginalization, and limited safe spaces for open

74 communication. While educational institutions are experiencing a gradual and relative

75 growth in diversity initiatives, they are still working towards effective practices or policies

76 that ensure non-binary individuals feel safe to be seen and heard *and know they are

77 protected (Kosciw, Clark, Truong, & Zongrone, 2022).

78 Safe space is defined as the opportunity to identify and express one’s identity free

79 from any form of discrimination, bullying, judgment, or danger that fosters inclusivity in the

80 academic culture, so LGBTQ+ students can flourish (GLSEN, n.d.). When students

81 identify safe space communication about LGBTQ+ discrimination and bullying, it not only

82 improved their psychological wellness, but also promoted their academic achievement and

83 retention (Woodford et al., 2012).

84 Research has indicated that LGBTQ+ students face bullying, social exclusion and

85 mental health issues more frequently in academic environments than their heterosexual

86 and cisgender peers (Greytak, Kosciw, & Diaz, 2009). These challenges are often

87 exacerbated by the persistence of heterosexism, transphobia, and racial oppression in

88 academic environments, which tend to worsen in the absence of institutional policies or

89 effective communication channels for students to voice their ideas and access support.

90 According to Nicolazzo (2017), institutional inaction and silence around gender diversity

91 often leave trans students navigating hostile environments with limited structural
 92 assistance. Similarly, Rankin, Weber, Blumenfeld, and Frazer (2010) found that LGBTQ+

93 students experience exclusion and marginalization due to systemic heterosexism and

94 racism, which are further amplified when institutions fail to provide adequate policies or

95 inclusive communication practices. Pitcher (2017) emphasizes that queer and trans

96 students of color often feel like “unexpected guests” in academia, facing compounded

97 forms of discrimination without meaningful support systems. Furthermore, Garvey, Taylor,

98 and Rankin (2015) highlight that LGBTQ+ students thrive better when institutions foster

99 open communication and actively work to create affirming campus climates.

100 This study seeks to explore the lived experiences of LGBTQ+ students attending

101 academic institutions, with a particular focus on how the presence or absence of safe

102 space communication shapes their educational experiences. By understanding LGBTQ+

103 discrimination through students lived experiences, educators and administrators can

104 better respond to their needs and implement structural changes necessary to build an

105 open, inclusive, and supportive learning environment.

106 Research from diverse fields such as psychology, biology, and sociology has

107 demonstrated that LGBTQ+ identities are complex, fluid, and not confined to binary or

108 static categories. In psychology, the Kinsey Scale was among the first tools to illustrate

109 that sexual orientation exists on a continuum rather than as discrete categories of

110 "heterosexual" or "homosexual" (Kinsey, Pomeroy, & Martin, 1948). More recent

111 psychological research also supports the idea that sexual and gender identities develop

112 across a spectrum and can shift over time (Diamond, 2008).

113 In the field of biology, studies have shown that sexual orientation and gender

114 identity are influenced by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and neurological factors.
115 For instance, research by LeVay (1991) identified structural differences in the

116 hypothalamus of homosexual and heterosexual men, suggesting a biological basis for

117 sexual orientation. Additional studies indicate that prenatal hormone exposure may also

118 play a role in shaping gender and sexual identity (Bao & Swaab, 2011).

119 From a sociological perspective, identity formation is seen as socially constructed

120 and shaped by cultural, historical, and institutional influences. Sociologists argue that

121 identities are not innate but are formed through interactions and norms within society

122 (Foucault, 1978; Weeks, 2010). For example, different cultures recognize more than two

123 genders, such as the Hijra in South Asia or Two-Spirit identities among Indigenous North

124 Americans, further challenging Western binary frameworks of gender and sexuality (Towle

125 & Morgan, 2002).

126 Together, these findings support the understanding that LGBTQ+ identities are

127 diverse, multidimensional, and shaped by both internal and external factors, rather than

128 fixed or universally experienced.

129 Alfred Kinsey and his colleagues introduced the Kinsey Scale in 1948, showing

130 that sexual orientation is not simply "heterosexual" or "homosexual," but exists along a

131 continuum. This means some people may be mostly attracted to one gender while still

132 experiencing some attraction to another, and others may not feel sexual attraction at all,

133 as in the case of asexuality (Kinsey, Pomeroy, & Martin, 1948). More recent psychological

134 research has further supported the idea that sexual and gender identities develop across

135 a spectrum and may shift over time (Diamond, 2008). These explains how the identities

136 of LGBTQ people are complex, multilayered, and have a substantial impact on health and

137 well-being (Rice D. 2011). Recently, LGBTQ+ individuals have increased within academic
138 institutions showing how the society is now leaning towards acceptance and recognition

139 of diverse identities. However, despite this progress, LGBTQ+ students and faculty

140 continue to face significant challenges that hinder their full participation and well-being in

141 academic settings (Russell et al. 2021). Studies consistently indicate that LGBTQ+

142 students experience higher rates of mental health issues, including depression, anxiety,

143 and suicidal ideation, compared to their heterosexual and cisgender peers. For example,

144 a national study by The Trevor Project (2023) reported that more than 70% of LGBTQ+

145 youth experienced symptoms of anxiety, and over 50% reported symptoms of depression.

146 Additionally, research by Russell and Fish (2016) highlights that LGBTQ+ youth are

147 significantly more likely to consider or attempt suicide due to minority stress and stigma.

148 The added stress of navigating identity-related challenges, such as concealing

149 one’s identity, fear of rejection, and internalized homophobia or transphobia, has been

150 shown to exacerbate mental health problems (Meyer, 2003). These stressors are often

151 compounded by negative experiences in educational settings, where LGBTQ+ students

152 frequently face verbal and physical harassment from peers and, in some cases, even

153 faculty members (Kosciw et al., 2020). Such hostile school climates have been linked to

154 poorer academic outcomes, lower self-esteem, and higher dropout rates among LGBTQ+

155 students.

156 This hostile environment can lead to a diminished sense of belonging and

157 academic disengagement. Additionally, LGBTQ+ students may also face financial

158 hardships due to lack of family support. Furthermore, the absence of gender-inclusive

159 facilities can increase feelings of isolation and stress. (Reggiani M., Gagnon J. D. & Lunn

160 R. J.).
161 Studies demonstrate the positive impact of inclusive school environments,

162 including safe spaces, on LGBTQ+ students' educational outcomes, retention, mental

163 health, and overall well-being (Beasy et al., 2021). A comprehensive literature review by

164 Marx and Kettrey (2016) systematically analyzed the impact of Gay-Straight Alliances

165 (GSAs) on LGBTQ+ youth. Their meta-analysis revealed that the presence of GSAs in

166 schools is associated with lower levels of victimization and harassment among LGBTQ+

167 students. The study concluded that GSAs serve as effective safe spaces, fostering

168 inclusivity and reducing discrimination, thereby promoting the well-being of LGBTQ+

169 students.

170 One emerging approach to address this issue is the implementation of safe

171 spaces within academic environments. These safe spaces are not merely physical areas

172 but are also created through intentional communication practices, inclusive language, and

173 affirming interpersonal interactions (Holley & Steiner, 2005; Arao & Clemens, 2013; Cox

174 & Gallois, 1996). These environments aim to validate identities, foster belonging, and

175 provide refuge from hostility (Boostrom, 1998; Case & Meier, 2014). Safe spaces are

176 critical support systems where students can express themselves freely without fear of

177 harassment, judgement, and exclusion.

178 The relevance of safe spaces is closely linked to global development frameworks

179 such as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Specifically, SDG 4:

180 Quality Education emphasizes inclusive and equitable education for all, while SDG 5:

181 Gender Equality calls for the elimination of gender-based discrimination. Promoting safe,

182 affirming academic spaces directly contributes to these goals by ensuring that all students,
183 regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, can participate in education without

184 fear or marginalization (UNESCO, 2017).

185 Institutions often maintain policies, practices, and curricula that marginalize non-

186 cisgender and non-heterosexual identities. This is evident in systems that only allow binary

187 gender markers (male/female) on admission forms and student records, thereby excluding

188 and invalidating nonbinary and genderqueer students (Beemyn, 2015; Seelman, 2016;

189 Nicolazzo, 2017). Housing policies also commonly assign students to their

190 quarters/boarding rooms based on sex assigned at birth, rather than gender identity

191 (Seelman, 2016). Health services provided by school may lack understanding of LGBTQ+

192 health needs or access to hormone therapy or mental health counseling that is LGBTQ+

193 affirming (Beemyn & Rankin, 2011).

194 Moreover, LGBTQ+ students encounter both obvious and subtle forms of

195 exclusion, including the lack of Gender-Neutral Facilities, many campuses lack gender-

196 neutral restrooms or changing rooms, forcing transgender and nonbinary students to use

197 gendered spaces that may feel unsafe or invalidating. Research by the Journal of LGBT

198 Youth (Seelman, 2016) found that transgender students without access to appropriate

199 facilities reported significantly higher rates of harassment and psychological distress.

200 Another example of institutional exclusion is the enforcement of gendered dress

201 codes. Dress policies that require "men" to wear pants and "women" to wear skirts or

202 dresses uphold rigid gender norms and fail to accommodate the identities of transgender,

203 nonbinary, and gender-nonconforming students. These dress codes not only reinforce a

204 binary understanding of gender, but also penalize students for expressing themselves

205 authentically (Miller & Grollman, 2015; Airton, 2018). Such policies can result in emotional
206 distress, disciplinary action, or social exclusion for students whose gender expression

207 does not conform to institutional expectations (GLSEN, 2021). Consequently, enforcing

208 gender-specific dress codes creates unsafe and invalidating academic environments for

209 LGBTQ+ individuals.

210 Misgendering which is referring to someone with incorrect pronouns or names is a

211 common microaggression LGBTQ+ students face. Even when unintentional,

212 misgendering can cause emotional harm, stress, and feelings of invisibility (Knutson et al.,

213 2019; Nadal, 2013). GLSEN’s 2019 National School Climate Survey found that only 26%

214 of transgender students reported that school staff used their correct pronouns illustrating

215 a significant gap in affirming practices within educational institutions (Kosciw et al., 2020).

216 In many colleges and universities, the curriculum still predominantly reflects

217 heterosexual and cisnormative perspectives. As a result, LGBTQ+ identities are frequently

218 ignored, minimized, or only briefly mentioned. When LGBTQ+ topics are included, they

219 are often confined to elective courses focused on gender or sexuality, while core subjects

220 such as history, literature, psychology, and science often fail to integrate queer

221 perspectives (Beemyn, 2002; Nicolazzo, 2017). This exclusion reinforces the notion that

222 LGBTQ+ identities are peripheral or non-essential to mainstream academic discourse.

223 According to GLSEN (2020), inclusive curricula are directly linked to improved educational

224 outcomes for LGBTQ+ students, yet many institutions lack systemic integration of these

225 identities across disciplines.

226 An example is when some courses avoid including books by LGBTQ+ authors or

227 important events involving LGBTQ+ people and movements are often not discussed. In
228 psychology, some textbooks still present outdated or negative views of LGBTQ+ identities,

229 which can be harmful and misleading (Nicolazzo, 2017).

230 This kind of exclusion can have a huge impact on the LGBTQ+ students. When

231 they do not see themselves represented in the curriculum, it sends the message that their

232 experiences are not valued. This can lead to feelings of invisibility or isolation. As a result,

233 many LGBTQ+ students face mental health challenges such as anxiety, depression, and

234 even suicidal thoughts (Rankin, et al. 2010). They may also feel disconnected from the

235 university, which can make it harder for them to express themselves and join in university

236 activities and organizations. In addition to emotional struggles, LGBTQ+ students often

237 deal with bullying, harassment, or being treated unfairly by others in school (Rankin et al.,

238 2010). These experiences create an unsafe and unwelcoming learning environment,

239 making it more difficult for students to thrive both personally and academically.

240 In the U.S., some institutions have taken significant steps to support LGBTQ+

241 students through inclusive residential and leadership initiatives. For instance, Kent State

242 University has implemented LGBTQ+ Living-Learning Communities, offering specialized

243 housing and programming focused on sexual orientation, gender identity, and social

244 justice (Kent State University, n.d.). These environments aim to build community and

245 provide safe, affirming spaces for LGBTQ+ students.

246 In the UK, there is a growing movement advocating for LGBTQ+ leadership

247 development programs in higher education, recognizing the value of lived experiences in

248 shaping inclusive academic leadership (ECU, 2017). These programs are designed to

249 cultivate leadership potential while addressing the specific challenges LGBTQ+ individuals

250 face in academic settings.

251 Furthermore, a report by the American Council on Education (2022) found that

252 over 76% of LGBTQ+ graduate students reported the presence of LGBTQ+ student

253 organizations at their schools, while more than half noted the existence of LGBTQ+

254 resource centers and visible LGBTQ+ faculty or staff, reflecting a trend toward greater

255 visibility and institutional support.

256 Regardless of being visible, LGBTQ+ still face persistent and significant

257 challenges. Harassment and discrimination are common with about 32.6 percent of

258 LGBTQ people who attended a four-year college reported experiencing assault, bullying,

259 or harassment, compared to 18.9 percent of their non-LGBTQ peers. However, the

260 degree to which these strategies are effective in non-Western or conservative cultural

261 contexts, such as in many Asian countries including the Philippines, remains under-

262 researched. While institutions like the University of the Philippines have made strides in

263 gender-inclusive policies—such as through the implementation of the UP-Gender

264 Guidelines in 2017, which promote gender sensitivity in academic policies, facilities, and

265 language—systematic evaluation of their effectiveness is still limited (University of the

266 Philippines, 2017). which explicitly prohibit discrimination based on gender and commit

267 the university to provide a gender-friendly environment that promotes gender equality,

268 Recognition of Transgender and Gender Non-Conforming (TGNC) Students, Gender

269 Mainstreaming and Institutional Mechanisms making the university conduct gender audits

270 and analyses to develop Gender and Development (GAD) plans and programs addressing

271 gender gaps among students, faculty, and staff. Lastly, the presence of safe spaces and

272 inclusive environments. Even with several universities’ efforts many schools still lack

273 concrete communication practices that ensure safe and inclusive daily interactions for

274 LGBTQ+ students.

275 LGBTQ+ individuals in Benguet and other parts of the Cordillera often find it harder

276 to express who they are because of strong cultural beliefs in their communities. Many of

277 which come from traditions that expect people to follow clear roles like how men and

278 women should act, dress, or live their lives. In Cordilleran culture, there is a value called

279 “inayan”, which means being careful not to do something wrong or shameful. Because

280 being LGBTQ+ is sometimes seen as going against tradition in some areas of cordillera,

281 some people think it’s inayan to follow the customs. This can make LGBTQ+ youth feel

282 afraid to come out or show their true selves, even if no one directly tells them not to.

283 Although universities like Benguet State University (BSU) have established

284 institutional mechanisms such as Gender and Development (GAD) offices to support

285 gender inclusivity, there remains a significant gap in research that investigates how

286 LGBTQ+ students actually experience these initiatives, particularly through the lens of

287 day-to-day communication practices within academic spaces. While policies and

288 structures may exist on paper, their effectiveness often depends on how they are

289 communicated, interpreted, and enacted at the interpersonal and institutional levels.

290 Communication within academic spaces—both formal and informal—plays a

291 critical role in either fostering or undermining a sense of safety and inclusion for LGBTQ+

292 students. These practices include verbal and non-verbal interactions, classroom

293 discourse, administrative language, faculty-student engagement, peer conversations, and

294 institutional messaging. As Wood (2012) points out, inclusive communication is central to

295 constructing affirming environments, as it validates individual identities and promotes

296 mutual respect. Conversely, microaggressions, heteronormative language, or the failure

297 to acknowledge gender-diverse identities in academic interactions can serve to reinforce

298 exclusion and marginalization (Nicolazzo, 2017).

299 Moreover, interpersonal communication—such as how professors respond to

300 students’ gender pronouns, how peers discuss LGBTQ+ topics, or how administrators

301 address student concerns—can significantly shape perceptions of safety. According to

302 Allen (2011), communication is not just a means of conveying information but a

303 constitutive force that builds relationships and defines social realities, including what is

304 considered “safe” or “unsafe.” In this regard, the absence of affirmative and intentional

305 communication can render safe spaces performative rather than transformative.

306 Additionally, studies like that of Rankin et al. (2010) emphasize that LGBTQ+

307 students often navigate a “chilly climate” in higher education, where institutional silence or

308 inconsistent communication about diversity and inclusion undermines the potential of safe

309 spaces. This suggests that beyond establishing GAD offices, institutions must ensure that

310 communication practices are inclusive, responsive, and reflective of diverse student

311 identities to effectively sustain safe academic environments.

312 Thus, the study seeks to explore the lived experiences of LGBTQ+ students in

313 academic settings in Benguet, with a specific focus on safe space communication

314 practices and how it can be improved to better support their sense of belonging, emotional

315 well-being, and success in school. Rather than focusing solely on institutional policies, this

316 study centers the voices of LGBTQ+ students themselves, aiming to understand how

317 communication fosters or fails to foster safe spaces in local academic contexts.

318 Inclusive school environments, which include safe spaces, correlate with improved

319 educational outcomes and retention rates for LGBTQ+ students (Beasy et al., 2021).
320 Wood et al. (2016) emphasize that quality instruction can only occur when students feel

321 safe in their classrooms, highlighting the fundamental importance of safety for learning.

322 By offering an environment where the students can feel secure and valued, students are

323 able to have a better overall mental health and academic engagement with the presence

324 of safe spaces in their learning environment (Harpalani, et al., 2017). These spaces

325 help alleviate feelings of isolation and bridge students who have similar experiences, thus

326 creating a sense of belongingness that can enhance their overall educational experience.

327 The safe spaces can serve as a big pool of ideas where students engage in meaningful

328 conversations promoting understanding among diverse individuals, which enhances the

329 critical thinking skills as students are exposed to different perspectives (Biegel et al.,

330 2010).

331

332 Theoretical Framework

333 Standpoint Theory

334 This research draws upon Standpoint Theory, which asserts that individuals’

335 perspectives are shaped by their social positions within society. Those from

336 marginalized communities, such as the non-binary population, possess unique insights

337 and understandings that may not be visible to those in more privileged positions. Their

338 experiences offer critical knowledge that reveals systemic inequities and cultural blind

339 spots, making their standpoints essential for a more inclusive and just academic

340 environment.

341 Harding introduces the idea of "strong objectivity," meaning that research

342 starting with the experiences of marginalized people is not only valid but also gives
343 a clearer and less biased picture of the world. She argues that all knowledge is

344 influenced by social context, challenging the idea that knowledge can be completely

345 neutral. Standpoint Theory values the perspectives of marginalized people because

346 they come from their real-life experiences of exclusion and oppression.

347 Julia T. Wood expands this idea in communication studies by showing how

348 social location affects how people communicate and understand each other. She

349 explains that gender and other identities are created through cultural and

350 communication practices, not just biology. Using Standpoint Theory in

351 communication research means recognizing that LGBTQ+ people have important

352 insights about communication that are often ignored. Their views challenge

353 dominant stories and reveal hidden power dynamics, even in schools and

354 universities.

355 Standpoint Theory helps focus on the real experiences of LGBTQ+ students

356 in schools, especially how feelings of inclusion and belonging are communicated.

357 This theory is important for studying how LGBTQ+ students see and use "safe

358 spaces" on campus. It views these students as active contributors who highlight

359 problems and opportunities in education, rather than just passive recipients of

360 policies.

361 Harding and Wood also emphasize that marginalized experiences are not

362 all the same. People’s identities overlap in many ways, like sexual orientation,

363 gender, race, class, or disability. How schools recognize or ignore these

364 overlapping identities affects how supported LGBTQ+ students feel. Standpoint

365 Theory allows us to understand these complex experiences better than one-size-

366 fits-all approaches.

367 This theory guides the study’s questions about what safe spaces mean, how

368 policies support them, and how they affect students’ well-being and success. It

369 challenges common ideas about what makes a place "safe" or "inclusive" and

370 listens to voices often left out of school decisions. By focusing on LGBTQ+ students’

371 experiences, the study aims to describe the current situation and suggest ways to

372 make schools more welcoming, and fair.

373 Overall, Standpoint Theory is about listening carefully to people in

374 marginalized positions. It helps rethink how knowledge about safe spaces is made,

375 whose voices matter, and how schools can show they truly include everyone. Using

376 this view, the study wants to understand how LGBTQ+ students experience safe

377 spaces and find ways to improve their sense of belonging, mental health, and

378 academic achievement.

379
380 Conceptual Framework

381 Safe Spaces

382 The researchers argue that safe should not be viewed as fixed or universally

383 defined as simply “safe” or “unsafe.” Instead, they should be understood through the

384 ongoing relation process of creating and maintaining them. Cultivating them includes both

385 acknowledging social differences and binaries (safe-unsafe, inclusive-exclusive) while

386 also recognizing that these distinctions are fluid and permeable (The Roestone Collective,

387 2014). Safe spaces also encompass proactive initiatives, like Brock University's "Positive

388 Space Campaign," which aimed to challenge the marginalization of LGBTQ+ students,

389 staff, and faculty by increasing visibility and providing supportive and welcoming spaces

390 through resources and workshops (Burgess, 2005). The aim is to cultivate a “zone of
391 kindness and acceptance” (Wood et al., 2016). This highlights the intentional effort to

392 combat heteronormativity and create a more inclusive campus environment. The concept

393 of safe space will continue to be used in the context of movement building, academic

394 theory, and student support services, where safety of a marginalized demographic is a

395 priority (NASPA, 2017). As Simon (2017) highlights, understanding the symbolic co-

396 construction of safe spaces is crucial. These spaces are not simply designated areas, but

397 are actively shaped by the experiences, narratives, and interactions of their users.

398

399 Safe Spaces and Inclusivity

400 The contextually of safe spaces is crucial. Charlton (2024) emphasizes that queer

401 spaces are not inherently safe but become so through social interactions and power

402 dynamics. Understanding the (in)visibility and exclusivity within these spaces is key to

403 ensuring actual safety. Teachers can contribute by using literacy strategies and LGBTQ+

404 literature to promote conversation, address stereotypes, and create zones of kindness

405 and acceptance within classrooms (Wood et al., 2016). Safe spaces provide a sense of

406 "we," offering support and mutual engagement that is crucial for developing authenticity

407 and empowerment in the face of discrimination (Gamarel et al., 2014). A scoping review

408 by McCormick et al. (2015) explored various forms of social support for LGBTQ+ youth

409 within educational settings. The findings highlighted those safe spaces, such as GSAs

410 and supportive school policies, are instrumental in enhancing the mental health and

411 academic outcomes of LGBTQ+ students. The review emphasized the importance of

412 discrimination and promoting a sense of belonging among LGBTQ+ youth. By actively

413 working against marginalization and oppression, safe spaces empower LGBTQ+

414 individuals to use language and critical literacy to challenge hegemonic ideologies
415 (Schreuder, 2019). This underscores the proactive role of safe spaces in fostering agency

416 and resistance against societal norms. They also directly address mental health concerns

417 arising from societal heteronormativity, violence, and micro-aggressions, (Guidi, 2019).

418 The creation of GSAs in public spaces and other interventions prioritize the mental well-

419 being of the LGBTQ+ community (Guidi, 2019).

420 The term LGBTQ is an acronym that stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual,

421 Transgender, and Queer (or Questioning). Each of these identities represents different

422 aspects of sexual orientation—who individuals are attracted to—and gender identity—how

423 they perceive themselves in terms of gender. The LGBTQ+ community is diverse,

424 encompassing people with unique experiences and personal ways of identifying.

425 In academic contexts, the concept of “safe spaces” refers to environments

426 intentionally created to support individuals—particularly those from marginalized or

427 minoritized communities—by ensuring they can express themselves freely without fear of

428 discrimination, harassment, or judgment. These spaces go beyond physical locations;

429 they also serve as emotional and psychological havens where inclusivity, acceptance, and

430 psychological safety are prioritized. As a result, safe spaces promote effective learning

431 and foster a sense of belonging for both students and faculty members.

432 Furthermore, the terminology associated with these environments—such as safe

433 space, safer space, and positive space—reflects a broader institutional and pedagogical

434 commitment to non-tolerance of violence, harassment, or hate speech. These spaces

435 symbolize a dedication by educators and academic institutions to create inclusive

436 environments where historically marginalized individuals feel protected and valued.
437 In addition, safe spaces encourage freedom of expression by allowing individuals

438 to engage in open, critical, and thought-provoking discussions on sensitive topics without

439 fear of lasting judgment or ridicule. Within these environments, students are empowered

440 to take intellectual risks, learn from mistakes, and grow within a supportive and respectful

441 community.

442 Several scholars have contributed to the discourse on safe spaces, offering varied

443 perspectives. For instance, Schapiro (2016) defines safe spaces as settings that provide

444 emotional comfort and security for students from diverse backgrounds. On the other hand,

445 Grieve (2016) critiques the concept by arguing that such spaces may become isolating,

446 as some students might use them to avoid confronting opposing viewpoints. This contrast

447 highlights a tension in conceptualizing safe spaces—viewing them both as inclusive

448 sanctuaries and as potentially exclusionary zones. Meanwhile, Wood et al. (2016) outline

449 the foundational principles of safe spaces, including respect, inclusivity, kindness,

450 acceptance, and non-discrimination—values that serve as benchmarks for evaluating and

451 developing such environments. Additionally, Gamarel et al. (2014) emphasize the role of

452 safe spaces in fostering authenticity, mutual engagement, and empowerment, which allow

453 individuals to express their identities freely and confidently.

454 Taken together, these definitions and insights establish the conceptual framework

455 of this study. Safe spaces are not merely physical places but are intentional, value-driven

456 constructs aimed at fostering equity, dialogue, and emotional safety in academic

457 environments.

458
459 Challenges and Criticisms

460 The concept of safe spaces in academic institutions has been widely debated, with

461 critics arguing that they contribute to the "coddling" of students and limit free speech.

462 Lukianoff and Haidt (2015) argue that the rise of safe spaces contributes to a culture of

463 emotional fragility, where students are shielded from discomfort rather than prepared for

464 intellectual challenges. They suggest that avoiding controversial topics in favor of

465 emotional comfort may hinder critical thinking and personal resilience. Similarly, Campbell

466 and Manning (2018) contend that the proliferation of safe spaces reinforces a "victimhood

467 culture," where students seek institutional protection rather than engaging in open

468 discourse.

469 Conversely, proponents of safe spaces emphasize their role in fostering inclusivity

470 and protecting marginalized communities from harm. According to Arao and Clemens

471 (2013), safe spaces are essential for individuals who have historically faced discrimination

472 and exclusion, providing them with an environment where they can freely express their

473 experiences without fear of hostility. Additionally, studies by Gorski and Swalwell (2015)

474 highlight that safe spaces do not necessarily suppress free speech but rather create

475 conditions where all voices, including those that are often silenced, can be heard and

476 respected.

477 Statement of the Problem

478 This study aims to explore the experiences of LGBTQ+ students in academic

479 setting, focusing on student’s safe space. Specifically, it seeks to answer the

480 following questions:

481 1. How do non-binary students at BSU experience the university environment in

482 terms of safety and inclusivity?

483 2. What are the common physical and symbolic spaces that non-binary students

484 perceive as safe or unsafe within BSU?

485 3. How do these spaces affect their academic and social experience?

486 4. What recommendations can be drawn from non-binary students’ experiences to

487 promote more inclusive and affirming academic environments at BSU?

488 Literature Review

489 Psychological and Academic Benefits

490 Safe spaces are significant in educational settings, particularly for the marginalized

491 groups. The presence of safe spaces plays essential roles in helping foster inclusivity,

492 emotional well-being and academic success of students. The supportive environment safe

493 spaces provide allows the students to express themselves without fear of prejudice or

494 discrimination which is crucial for their emotional and psychological well-being. They also

495 foster better social experiences for the students. A study supports that exposure to diverse

496 perspectives enhances problem solving skills and creativity, as the group learns to take

497 challenges in a different angle. (Page, 2007)

498 Capretta, D'Anneo, and Polignano (2024) also found that LGBTQ+ urban spaces,

499 particularly those with a political focus, positively influence individuals' sense of identity,

500 community, and security. This positive influence stems from their social function, which

501 allows for the creation of solid bonds within a safe place, and their historical significance,

502 which provides a point of reference for the local LGBTQ+ community (Capretta, D'Anneo,

503 & Polignano, 2024).

504

505 Academic institutions face the challenge of balancing the need for safe spaces

506 with the principles of open discourse. Research suggests that universities adopt various

507 strategies to navigate this balance. Whittington (2018) emphasizes that educational

508 institutions should cultivate environments where robust debates can occur while ensuring
509 that students from diverse backgrounds feel supported. This involves establishing

510 guidelines that promote both free expression and respect for differing perspectives.

511 Some institutions implement a dual approach by designating certain areas as safe

512 spaces while maintaining other forums for open debate. For example, Binder and Wood

513 (2013) found that universities often create affinity groups where marginalized students can

514 discuss issues affecting them while also hosting structured debates and discussions

515 where diverse viewpoints are encouraged. This strategy allows institutions to provide

516 support for vulnerable students while upholding their commitment to academic freedom

517 (Kamenetz, 2016).

518 Moreover, research by Stitzlein (2020) suggests that fostering a culture of

519 intellectual humility and dialogue can bridge the gap between safe spaces and open

520 discourse. Institutions that emphasize education on civil discourse, critical thinking, and

521 respectful engagement are more successful in maintaining academic freedom while

522 ensuring that students feel secure in expressing their identities and perspectives (Nelson,

523 2017).

524 The debate over safe spaces and their potential limitations highlights the

525 complexity of fostering both inclusivity and open discourse in academic settings. While

526 some argue that safe spaces contribute to intellectual fragility and limit free speech, others

527 assert that they are necessary for marginalized groups to feel heard and protected.

528 Research indicates that institutions can balance these concerns by adopting inclusive

529 policies, facilitating structured debates, and promoting respectful dialogue. Moving

530 forward, further studies are needed to assess the long-term impact of safe spaces on

531 academic discourse and student development (Flaherty, 2018).

532 Institutional Policies and Best Practices

533 Several schools in the US have implemented various policies and strategies to

534 create and maintain an inclusive environment for LGBTQ students. Enumerated anti-

535 bullying policies that explicitly protect students based on sexual orientation and gender

536 identity have been effective in reducing victimization and increasing teacher intervention.

537 Professional development programs for educators also play a crucial role, as teachers

538 who receive training on LGBTQ issues are more likely to foster supportive school climates.

539 Additionally, Gay-Straight Alliances (GSAs) provide safe spaces for LGBTQ students,

540 offering peer support and advocacy for inclusive policies, which has been linked to lower

541 truancy and better student well-being. Incorporating LGBTQ-inclusive content in curricula

542 further promotes representation and understanding, as initiatives like GLSEN’s Ready,

543 Set, Respect! encourage the discussion of family diversity, gender roles, and bias in

544 classrooms. Other schoolwide efforts, such as character education programs and

545 advocacy initiatives, reinforce inclusivity by educating students on anti-discrimination

546 topics. Furthermore, the introduction of gender-neutral facilities helps ensure that

547 transgender and non-binary students feel welcome and respected in the school

548 environment. Collectively, these measures contribute to a more inclusive academic setting

549 that supports the social and emotional well-being of LGBTQ students (American Educator,

550 2016). Brock University's "Positive Space Campaign" serves as one example of a

551 university attempting to address the marginalization of LGBTQ+ students (Burgess, 2005).

552 Collins (2017) also explores precarious sites of resistance created by LGBTQ+ asylum

553 seekers in Ireland, highlighting the need for safe spaces and support for vulnerable

554 populations. Effective policies include providing comprehensive inclusivity training for staff
555 and security at LGBTQ+ venues, coupled with stricter door policies, to ensure the safety

556 and well-being of attendees (Baxter et al., 2023).

557

558 Methodology

559 Research Design

560 This study will employ a qualitative research design to explore the personal

561 experiences and perceptions of non-binary students regarding safe spaces. A

562 Interpretative design will be used to gain a detailed understanding of how these students

563 interpret and benefit from the concept of safe spaces. The phenomenological method, as

564 described by Creswell and Poth (2018), is appropriate to get the participants shared

565 experiences.

566 Population and Locale

567 The participants of this study will be self- identified non-binary students from Benguet

568 State University (BSU). They will be selected through snowball sampling techniques to

569 ensure diverse representation. The study will take place at BSU, a public higher education

570 institution located in La Trinidad, Benguet. This setting is particularly relevant, as it

571 provides a context for exploring how non-binary students navigate and interpret safe

572 spaces in a public higher education institution.

573 Inclusion Criteria:

574 • Self-identified non-binary students.

575 • Currently enrolled at BSU during the data collection period.

576 • Willing to voluntarily participate and provide informed consent.

577 Exclusion Criteria:

578 • Students who do not identify as non-binary.

579 • Individuals who are not currently enrolled at BSU.

580 • Participants who are unwilling or unable to provide informed consent.

581 The approximate number of participants will range from 5 to 8, depending on data

582 saturation, the point at which no new themes or insights emerge from the data.

583 Data Gathering Instruments

584 A self-made, semi-structured interview guide will serve as the primary data

585 gathering instrument. The interview guide is designed to explore the experiences of non-

586 binary students within academic spaces, with a focus on their perceptions, interpretations,

587 and experiences of safety and acceptance.

588 The development of the guide is informed by:

589 • A review of related literature on non-binary experiences in education.

590 • The principles of Standpoint Theory, which emphasize understanding experiences

591 from the perspective of marginalized individuals.

592 The guide will include open-ended questions that allow participants to freely express their

593 insights while maintaining focus on the research objectives.

594
595 Data Gathering Procedures

596 Prior to data collection, the researcher will secure ethical clearance from the

597 Benguet State University Research Ethics Committee (BSU-REC). Data collection will

598 be done only after receiving formal approval.

599 The researcher will also seek formal consent from the BSU administration to

600 ensure institutional support and compliance with ethical standards.

601 Data will be collected through face-to-face, one-on-one interviews, conducted in

602 a private and comfortable setting within the university. This approach fosters a trusting

603 and open environment, which is crucial for discussing sensitive topics related to gender

604 identity and safety.

605 With the participants’ informed consent:

606 • The interviews will be audio-recorded for accuracy.

607 • Each interview will last approximately 45 to 60 minutes.

608 Participants will be informed of their right to withdraw from the study at any time

609 without penalty or consequence. Should any participant experience emotional discomfort

610 or distress during the interview, the researcher will:

611 1. Pause or terminate the session if necessary;

612 2. Offer emotional support and debriefing after the session;

613 3. Provide referrals to the university’s Guidance and Counseling Office for

614 additional support.

615 After each interview, post-session debriefing will be conducted to thank

616 participants, explain the next steps, and ensure they feel comfortable and supported.

617 Treatment of Data

618 The data will be analyzed using thematic analysis, guided by Braun and Clarke’s

619 (2006) framework, which includes six phases: familiarization with the data, generating

620 initial codes, searching for themes, reviewing themes, defining and naming themes, and

621 producing the report. This method allows for a flexible yet rigorous approach to identifying

622 patterns in qualitative data.

623

624 Ethical Considerations

625 Ethical considerations are central to this study, and the following measures will be

626 strictly implemented to ensure the protection, welfare, and rights of the participants. The

627 study will commence only after receiving formal approval from the Benguet State

628 University Research Ethics Committee (BSU-REC). The Informed Consent Form (ICF) will

629 include a statement indicating that the study has been approved by the BSU-REC, along

630 with the contact details of the BSU-REC Chair, as required by essential element #33 of

631 the ICF. Before signing the consent form, participants will be thoroughly briefed about the

632 purpose, procedures, potential risks, and benefits of the study to ensure voluntary and

633 informed participation.

634 Participants will have the right to withdraw from the study at any stage without any

635 repercussions. Should they choose to withdraw, their data will be excluded from the
636 analysis and destroyed immediately to protect their privacy. Confidentiality will be strictly

637 maintained throughout the research process. Participants’ names and personal identifiers

638 will not appear in any transcripts or reports. Instead, pseudonyms or codes will be used to

639 preserve anonymity. All audio recordings and transcripts will be securely stored, digital

640 files will be password-protected and kept on a private, encrypted device accessible only

641 to the researcher, while hard copies such as field notes and consent forms will be stored

642 in a sealed folder, in care of the researchers.

643 All data will be retained for two years after publication for validation purposes, after

644 which digital files will be permanently deleted and hard copies will be shredded to ensure

645 complete disposal. In cases where participants experience discomfort or distress during

646 data collection, the researcher will provide immediate support, pause or terminate the

647 interview if necessary, and refer the participant to the Guidance and Counseling Office of

648 Benguet State University for further assistance. Moreover, all research activities will

649 comply with the Republic Act No. 10173, also known as the Data Privacy Act of 2012, to

650 ensure the anonymity, security, and confidentiality of participants’ personal information

651 throughout the conduct of the study.

652

653 REFERENCES

654 American Educator. (2016). More than a safe space: How schools can enable LGBTQ

655 students to thrive. American Federation of Teachers. Retrieved from

656 [Link]

657 winter2016lgbtq_package.pdf
658 Arao, B., & Clemens, K. (2013). "From Safe Spaces to Brave Spaces: A New Way to

659 Frame Dialogue Around Diversity and Social Justice." In L. M.

660 Landreman (Ed.), The Art of Effective Facilitation: Reflections from Social

661 Justice Educators. Stylus Publishing.

662 Bartolo PA, Borg M, Callus A-M, De Gaetano A, Mangiafico M, Mazzacano D’Amato E,

663 Sammut C, Vella Vidal R and Vincent J (2023) Aspirations and accommodations

664 for students with disability to equitably access higher education: a systematic

665 scoping review. Front. Educ. 8:1218120. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2023.1218120

666 Baxter, D., Jones, S., & Leer, C. (2023). The infiltration of LGBTQ+ safe spaces.

667 International Journal of Event and Festival Management, 15(1), 101–120.

668 [Link]

669 Beasy, K., Grant, R., & Emery, S. (2021). Multiple dimensions of safe space for LGBTQ

670 students: school staff perceptions. Sex Education, 23(1), 35–48.

671 [Link]

672 Beemyn, G., & Rankin, S. (2011). The lives of transgender people. Columbia University

673 Press. [Link]

674 people/9780231143073

675 Binder, A. J., & Wood, K. (2013). Becoming Right: How Campuses Shape Young

676 Conservatives. Princeton University Press.

677 Bochicchio, V., Perillo, P., Valenti, A., Chello, F., Amodeo, A. L., Valerio, P., & Scandurra,

678 C. (2021). Pre-service teachers' approaches to gender-nonconforming children in

679 preschool and primary school: Clinical and educational implications. Journal of

680 Gay & Lesbian Mental Health, 25(1), 101-

681 120. [Link]

682 Brinkworth, C.S. (2016). From chilly climate to warm reception: Experiences of LGBTQ

683 students in STEM. [Link]

684 Burgess, A. (2005). Queering heterosexual spaces: positive space campaigns disrupting

685 campus heteronormativity. Canadian Women’s Studies, 24(2).

686 [Link]

687 Campbell, B., & Manning, J. (2018). The Rise of Victimhood Culture: Microaggressions,

688 Safe Spaces, and the New Culture Wars. Palgrave Macmillan.

689 Campen, R., Workman, J.L., & Archibald, J.G. (2022). In search of safety: A case study

690 of LGBT+ college students’ perception of safe spaces at a rural university. Georgia

691 Journal of College Student Affairs, 38(1), 37-58.

692 [Link]

693 Charlton, K. (2024). Negotiating the paradoxical binaries of ‘Safety’ in queer spaces:

694 Autoethnographic and Socio-Spatial reflections. Journal of Homosexuality, 1–20.

695 [Link]

696 Coley, J.S., & Das, D. (2020). Creating safe spaces: Opportunities, resources, and

697 LGBTQ student groups at U.S. colleges and universities. Socius: Sociological
698 Research for a Dynamic World, 6, 1-13.

699 [Link]

700 Collins, L.S. (2017). Safe Spaces: The Law and Everyday Experiences of LGBTQ

701 Asylum Seekers. [Link]

702 The-Law-and-Everyday-Experiences-of-

703 Collins/35f24a71354f0dc085a8e0f151155093cf4ae298

704 Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing

705 among five approaches (4th ed.). Sage Publications.

706 Fernández-Batanero, J. M., Montenegro-Rueda, M., & Fernández-Cerero, J. (2022).

707 Access and Participation of Students with Disabilities: The Challenge for Higher

708 Education. International journal of environmental research and public health,

709 19(19), 11918. [Link]

710 Fievre, M. (2021, October 26). Cultivating the classroom as a safe space. Edutopia.

711 [Link]

712 Flaherty, C. (2018). "Free Speech and Campus Speech Codes." Inside Higher Ed.

713 Retrieved from [Link]

714 Fostering psychological safety in the educational setting. (n.d.). Staff Portal.

715 [Link]

716 psychological-safety-in-the-educational-setting?

717 Gamarel, K. E., Garrett-Walker, J., Rivera, L., & Golub, S. A. (2014). Identity Safety and

718 Relational Health in Youth Spaces: A Needs Assessment with LGBTQ Youth of
719 Color. Journal of LGBT Youth, 11(3), 289–315.

720 [Link]

721 Garvey, J.C., & Rankin, S.R. (2015). Making the grade? Classroom climate for LGBTQ

722 students across gender conformity. Journal of Student Affairs Research and

723 Practice, 52(2), 190-203.

724 [Link]

725 GLSEN. (2020). The 2019 National School Climate Survey: The experiences of LGBTQ

726 youth in our nation’s schools. GLSEN.

727 [Link]

728 Gnan, G. H., Rahman, Q., Ussher, G., Baker, D., West, E., & Rimes, K. A. (2019). General

729 and LGBTQ-specific factors associated with mental health and suicide risk among

730 LGBTQ students. Journal of Youth Studies, 22(10), 1393–1408.

731 [Link]

732 Gorski, P. C., & Swalwell, K. (2015). "Equity Literacy for All." Educational Leadership,

733 72(6), 34- 40.

734 Greytak, E. A., Kosciw, J. G., & Diaz, E. M. (2009). Harsh realities: The experiences of

735 transgender youth in our nation’s schools. GLSEN.

736 Guidi, S. (2019). Safe Spaces: A Social Model Response to LGBTQ+ Mental Health.

737 [Link]

738 Response-to-LGBTQ%2B-

739 Guidi/455f53286211d08a3186b60d5d51cd54346782b3
740 Harpalani, V. (2017). Safe spaces and the educational benefits of diversity. Duke Journal

741 of Constitutional Law & Public Policy, 13, 117. Available at SSRN:

742 [Link]

743 Heck, N.C., Flentje, A., & Cochran, B.N. (2013). Offsetting risks: High school gay–straight

744 alliances and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) youth. Psychology

745 of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 1(S), 81-90.

746 [Link]

747 Human Rights Campaign. (n.d.). Glossary of Terms.

748 [Link]

749 Kamenetz, A. (2016). "Safe Spaces And 'Brave Spaces': Historical Context Of Campus

750 Speech Debates." NPR. Retrieved from [Link]

751 Kognito Education. (2023). Creating safe spaces: Strategies for supporting LGBTQ+

752 students in higher ed. [Link]

753 strategies-for-supporting-lgbtq-students-in-higher-ed

754 Kosciw, J. G., Clark, C. M., Truong, N. L., & Zongrone, A. D. (2022). The 2021 National

755 School Climate Survey: The experiences of LGBTQ+ youth in our nation’s

756 schools. GLSEN.

757 Lee, J. A. (2018). Affirmation, support, and advocacy: Critical race theory and academic

758 advising. NACADA Journal, 38(1), 77–87. [Link]

759 17-028
760 Leung, E., Kassel-Gomez, G., Sullivan, S., Murahara, F., & Flanagan, T. (2022). Social

761 support in schools and related outcomes for LGBTQ youth: a scoping review.

762 Discover education, 1(1), 18. [Link]

763 Lukianoff, G., & Haidt, J. (2015). The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good I

764 ntentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure. Penguin

765 Press.

766 Marx, R.A., & Kettrey, H.H. (2016). Gay–straight alliances are associated with lower levels

767 of school-based victimization of LGBTQ+ youth: A systematic review and meta-

768 analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45(7), 1269-1282.

769 [Link]

770 Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and

771 implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.

772 Mohapatra, S., Maiya, G. A., Nayak, U. U., Benny, L., Watson, J., Kinjawadekar, A., &

773 Nandineni, R. D. (2024). Centering Social Justice and Equity in Research on

774 Accessibility to Public Buildings for Individuals with Mobility Disabilities: A scoping

775 review. F1000Research, 13, 930.

776 [Link]

777 NASPA: Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education. (2017). Policy and practice:

778 Brave spaces and safe spaces (Policy and Practice Series No. 2).

779 [Link]

780 Safe_Brave_Spaces_DOWNLOAD.pdf
781 Nelson, C. (2017). "What Happened to Free Speech on Campus?" The Atlantic.

782 Retrieved from [Link]

783 Nicolazzo, Z. (2017). Trans in college: Transgender students’ strategies for navigating

784 campus life and the institutional politics of inclusion*. Stylus Publishing.

785 [Link]

786 College

787 Poteat, V.P., Yoshikawa, H., Calzo, J.P., Gray, M.L., DiGiovanni, C.D., Lipkin, A., & Shaw,

788 M.P. (2015). Contextualizing gay–straight alliances: Student, advisor, and

789 structural factors related to positive youth development among members. Child

790 Development, 86(1), 176-193.

791 [Link]

792 Rankin, S., Weber, G., Blumenfeld, W., & Frazer, S. (2010). 2010 State of higher

793 education for LGBT people. Campus Pride.

794 [Link]

795 people/

796 Russell, S. T., Bishop, M. D., Saba, V. C., James, I., & Ioverno, S. (2021). Promoting

797 School Safety for LGBTQ and All Students. Policy insights from the behavioral and

798 brain sciences, 8(2), 160–166. [Link]

799 Russell, S. T., Bishop, M. D., Saba, V. C., James, I., & Ioverno, S. (2021). Promoting

800 School Safety for LGBTQ and All Students. Policy insights from the behavioral and

801 brain sciences, 8(2), 160–166. [Link]

802 Schreuder, M. (2019). Safe spaces, agency, and resistance: a metasynthesis of LGBTQ

803 language use. Journal of LGBT Youth, 18(3), 256–272.

804 [Link]

805 Seelman, K. L. (2016). Transgender individuals’ access to college housing and

806 bathrooms: Findings from the National Transgender Discrimination Survey.

807 Journal of LGBT Youth, 13(2), 141–163.

808 [Link]

809 Simon, A. (2017). Safe Spaces: Their Construction and Their Purpose.

810 [Link]

811 Construction-and-Their-Purpose-

812 Simon/2fa5e122e6b3200d079771dc4bf2e277de7a9d66

813 Stitzlein, S. M. (2020). Learning How to Hope: Reviving Democracy through Schools and

814 Civil Society. Oxford University Press.

815 The Roestone Collective. (2014). Safe space: Towards a reconceptualization. Antipode,

816 46(4), 1346–1365. [Link]

817 The Trevor Project. (2023). Creating safer spaces in schools for LGBTQ+ young people.

818 [Link]

819 schools-for-lgbtq-young-people/
820 The Trevor Project. (2024). Anti-trans laws linked to increase in trans and nonbinary youth

821 suicide attempts. Time. [Link]

822 suicide-attempts/

823 The Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law. (2023, February 17). Experiences of

824 LGBTQ People in Four-Year Colleges and Graduate Programs - Williams Institute.

825 Williams Institute. [Link]

826 colleges-grad-school.

827 Weger, H., Bell, G. C., Minei, E. M., & Robinson, M. C. (2014). The relative

828 effectiveness of active listening in initial interactions. International Journal of

829 Listening, 28(1), 13–31. [Link]

830 Whittington, K. E. (2018). Speak Freely: Why Universities Must Defend Free Speech.

831 Princeton University Press.

832 Wood, K., Kissel, B., & Miller, E. (2016). Safe Zones: Supporting LGBTQ Youth through

833 Literature. Voices From the Middle, 23(4), 46–54.

834 [Link]

835

836 Woodford, M. R., Howell, M. L., Silverschanz, P., & Yu, L. (2012). "That’s so gay!"

837 Examining the covariates of hearing this expression among gay, lesbian, and

838 bisexual college students. Journal of American College Health, 60(6), 429–434.

839 [Link]

840
841 Allen, B. J. (2011). Difference matters: Communicating social identity (2nd ed.).

842 Waveland Press. [Link]

843 Nicolazzo, Z. (2017). Trans in college: Transgender students’ strategies for navigating

844 campus life and the institutional politics of inclusion*. Stylus Publishing, LLC.

845 [Link]

846 College

847 Rankin, S., Weber, G., Blumenfeld, W., & Frazer, S. (2010). 2010 State of higher e

848 ducation for LGBT people. Campus Pride.

849 [Link]

850 Wood, J. T. (2012). Gendered lives: Communication, gender, and culture (10th ed.).

851 Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

852 [Link]

853 Garvey, J. C., Taylor, J. L., & Rankin, S. (2015). An examination of campus climate for

854 LGBTQ community college students. Community College Journal of Research

855 and Practice, 39(6), 527–541. [Link]

856 Nicolazzo, Z. (2017). Trans in college: Transgender students’ strategies for navigating

857 campus life and the institutional politics of inclusion. Stylus Publishing, LLC.

858 [Link]

859 College

860 Pitcher, E. N. (2017). “There’s stuff that comes with being an unexpected guest”:

861 Experiences of queer and trans academics of color in higher education.

862 International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 30(3), 237–253.

863 [Link]

864 Rankin, S., Weber, G., Blumenfeld, W., & Frazer, S. (2010). 2010 state of higher

865 education for LGBT people. Campus Pride.

866 [Link]

867 Kosciw, J. G., Clark, C. M., Truong, N. L., & Zongrone, A. D. (2020). The 2019 National

868 School Climate Survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender,

869 and queer youth in our nation’s schools. GLSEN.

870 [Link]

871 Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and

872 bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological

873 Bulletin, 129(5), 674–697. [Link]

874 Russell, S. T., & Fish, J. N. (2016). Mental health in lesbian, gay, bisexual, and

875 transgender (LGBT) youth. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 12, 465–487.

876 [Link]

877 The Trevor Project. (2023). 2023 U.S. National Survey on the Mental Health of LGBTQ

878 Young People. [Link]

879 Arao, B., & Clemens, K. (2013). From safe spaces to brave spaces: A new way to frame

880 dialogue around diversity and social justice. In L. Landreman (Ed.), The art of

881 effective facilitation: Reflections from social justice educators (pp. 135–150).

882 Stylus Publishing.

883 Cox, S., & Gallois, C. (1996). Gay and lesbian identity development: A social identity

884 perspective. Journal of Homosexuality, 30(4), 1–30. h t t

885 ps://[Link]/10.1300/J082v30n04_01

886 Holley, L. C., & Steiner, S. (2005). Safe space: Student perspectives on classroom

887 environment. Journal of Social Work Education, 41(1), 49–64.

888 [Link]

889 Airton, L. (2018). Gender: Your guide – A gender-friendly primer on what to know, what

890 to say, and what to do in the new gender culture. Adams Media.

891 GLSEN. (2021). Erasure and resilience: The experiences of LGBTQ students of color –

892 Asian American and Pacific Islander LGBTQ youth in U.S. schools.

893 [Link]

894 pacific-islander-lgbtq-youth

895 Miller, L. R., & Grollman, E. A. (2015). The social costs of gender nonconformity for

896 transgender adults: Implications for discrimination and health. Sociological

897 Forum, 30(3), 809–831. [Link]

898 Kosciw, J. G., Clark, C. M., Truong, N. L., & Zongrone, A. D. (2020). The 2019 National

899 School Climate Survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender,

900 and queer youth in our nation’s schools. GLSEN.

901 [Link]

902 Knutson, D., McIntyre, E., & Jacobson, M. (2019). Misgendering transgender and

903 gender-diverse people: A review of the literature and implications for mental
904 health professionals. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 13(1), 1–20.

905 [Link]

906 Nadal, K. L. (2013). That's so gay! Microaggressions and the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and

907 transgender community. American Psychological Association.

908 [Link]

909 Beemyn, G. (2002). The development and administration of campus LGBT centers: A

910 historical perspective. Journal of LGBT Youth, 1(2), 33–46.

911 [Link]

912 Nicolazzo, Z. (2017). Trans in college: Transgender students’ strategies for navigating

913 campus life and the institutional politics of inclusion. Stylus Publishing.

914

915
916 INTERVIEW GUIDE

917 Briefly introduce the purpose of the interview: to understand non-binary students’

918 experiences regarding safety, inclusivity, and campus spaces at BSU. Assure

919 confidentiality and encourage honest, open responses. Obtain consent to record or take

920 notes.

921 1. How do LGBTQ+ students at BSU experience the university environment in terms

922 of safety and inclusivity?

923 1. Can you describe your overall experience as a non-binary student at BSU

924 in terms of feeling safe on campus?

925 2. How inclusive do you find the university environment towards non-binary

926 identities?

927 3. Are there specific instances or situations where you felt particularly safe or

928 unsafe? Could you share those?

929 2. What are the common physical and symbolic spaces that LGBTQ+ students

930 perceive as safe or unsafe within BSU?

931 1. What physical spaces on campus do you consider safe or welcoming for

932 non-binary students? Why?

933 2. Are there any spaces on campus that you perceive as unsafe or

934 unwelcoming? What makes these spaces feel that way?

935 3. Beyond physical locations, are there symbolic spaces (e.g., events, groups,

936 traditions) that you associate with safety or exclusion?

937 3. How do these spaces affect their academic and social experience?

938 1. How do the safe or unsafe spaces on campus influence your academic

939 experience at BSU?

940 2. In what ways do these spaces affect your social interactions and sense of

941 belonging on campus?

942 3. Have you noticed any impact on your mental health or well-being related

943 to your experiences in these spaces?

944 4. What recommendations can be drawn from LGBTQ+ students’ experiences to

945 promote more inclusive and affirming academic environments at BSU?

946 1. Based on your experiences, what changes or initiatives would you

947 recommend to make BSU more inclusive and affirming for non-binary

948 students?

949 2. Are there specific policies, programs, or resources you think the university

950 should implement or improve?

951 3. How can faculty, staff, and students contribute to creating a safer and more

952 supportive environment for non-binary individuals?