otherwise

The suicide issue attracted a substantial scholarly literature, although
the value of quantitative studies was repeatedly impaired by methodological
issues, which compounded the already substantial diff i c u l-
ties inherent in any research on suicide. Some studies concentrated
on suicidal behavior among groups of homosexuals, without attempting
to use a control group, while designs that did involve controls
were often of limited scale and relied too heavily on institutionalized
populations. One 1972 study suggested a high rate for young male
homosexuals, but without offering a control sample. 15
Prior to the late
1980s, only a handful of studies used large and well-chosen samples
both for homosexual subjects and non-homosexual controls. 16
By the mid-1980s, cumulative
evidence from
these and other studies
did indeed indicate a
higher incidence of suicidal
behavior or attempts
among the homosexual
population, especially
among younger men and women. 17
Despite some methodological
problems, this increased vulnerability may be taken as a plausible and
reasonably well-established trend, and observers were swift to
explore its implications. In 1983, Rofes’ book on suicide and homosexuality
included a groundbreaking chapter on “lesbians and gay
youth and suicide,” in which he remarks that hitherto, “the relationship
between homosexuality and youth suicide has virtually been ignored,”
and cites examples in which television presentations on the suicide
issue were forced to omit reference to sexual orientation. 18 H o w e v e r,
the coming years would more than compensate for this gap, and most
of the themes discussed in his work would soon become commonplace
in the mainstream literature.
This restrained finding was in marked contrast in tone and methodology
to a paper presented at the Oakland conference by Paul Gibson,
a clinical social worker based at San Francisco’s “Huckleberry House”
s h e l t e r. He argued at length that “gay youth are two or three times
more likely to attempt suicide than other people. They may comprise
up to 30 percent of completed youth suicides annually.” 1 9 G i b s o n
therefore took a reasonably well-accepted figure for the high prevalence
of suicidal behavior among homosexual youth, and added a
crucial but dubious statistical extrapolation, which sought to estimate
the “gay element” in the overall figures for teen suicides. T h o u g h
Gibson repeatedly presents anecdotal and survey evidence to show
that young homosexuals
By the mid-1980s,
cumulative evidence from these
and other studies did indeed indicate
a higher incidence of suicidal behavior
or attempts among
the homosexual population,
especially among younger men and women.
are likely to contemplate
suicide, he never explicitly
states how the “30 percent”
statistic is derived.
The logical process by
which this second stage
is established seems to
develop as follows:
1. Every year, some 5,000 young people commit suicide.
2. Assuming that one tenth of the population is homosexual, we
would expect about 500 of these cases to involve gay teenagers and
young adults, if homosexuals had a “normal” rate of suicidal behavior.
3. However, homosexuals are approximately three times as likely as
heterosexuals to commit suicide, so that the actual number of homosexual
suicides in a given year would be closer to 1500.
4. Therefore, the proportion of teen and young adult suicide cases
involving homosexuals is about 30 percent of the whole, or approximately
one-third.
The Federal Task Force
Research on the homosexual aspect of the teen suicide problem
attained national visibility through the work of the federal Task
Force, and especially through a number of conferences convened in
association with that investigation. In 1986 two important meetings
were held, respectively at Oakland, California, and at Bethesda,
Maryland, and both heard papers directly arguing for a major link
between homosexuality and teen suicide. One of the Bethesda
papers, by Professor Joseph Harry, examined the literature relating
suicide to “sexual identity issues,” a term which included pregnancy,
sexual abuse, and venereal disease, but which also presented several
pages on homosexuality. Reviewing the admittedly flawed literature,
Harry used the Bell-Weinberg and Saghir-Robins studies to
argue plausibly that homosexual youth attempted or committed suicide
at a rate from two to six times that of non-homosexuals. The
author was careful to emphasize that his conclusions affected individuals
of definitely homosexual orientation, as opposed to bisexuals,
or those with some same-sex experience in their pasts.
Gibson’s argument, especially in step (2), depends on his estimate
of the proportion of the total population that is homosexual, and it is
here that we encounter serious difficulties. He evidently accepts a
higher figure for the prevalence of homosexuality than would commonly
be accepted, in order to reach the conclusion that, “There are
far more gay youth than you are presently aware of.” This is substantiated
by Kinsey’s account “of homosexual behavior among
adolescents surveyed with 28 percent of the males and 17 percent
of the females reporting at least one homosexual experience. He
also found that that approximately 13 percent of adult males and 7
percent of adult females had engaged in predominantly homosexual
behavior for at least three years prior to his survey. That is where
that figure that 10 percent of the homosexual comes from...a substantial
minority of youth—perhaps one in ten as one book suggests—have
a primary gay male, lesbian or bisexual orientation.”
(Though not explicitly named, the “one book” probably refers to Ann
Heron’s 1983 selection of writings by young gay people, entitled
One Teenager in Ten.) Given the studies of gay tendencies towards
suicidal behavior, “this means that 20-30 percent of all youth suicides
may involve gay youth.” 20 He feels that this is a minimum fig-
“A Wo rld Th at Hates Gay s ” Philip Je n k i n s
179