Across European secondary schools, many lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and other sexual and gender minority students experience an accumulation of minor slights that appear routine but affect learning, wellbeing, and belonging. This study analyses how microaggressions and minority stress were embedded in Slovenian secondary schooling and how peers and professionals either sustained or interrupted these processes, including the movement of incidents and rumours between online platforms and school. The framework draws on minority stress theory, research on microaggressions and school belonging, and treats resilience as a social and institutional process. Three questions guided the analysis: What specific forms and settings of minority stress and microaggressions did LGBT+ students report, and how were these shaped by social and school context? Which processes and strategies of resilience did LGBT+ students use in response? How did non-LGBT peers and school staff understand their roles and practices, and in what ways did current attitudes and actions contribute to climates that were supportive or stressful?

The study assembled three perspectives within the secondary school environment. LGBT+ young people described negotiating visibility in settings where silence was treated as neutrality and where managing disclosure required continuous effort. Cisheterosexual peers reported situations that made informal rules visible in practice, including teasing and slurs linked to appearance, clothing, speech, or presumed identity, the spread of rumours and outings without consent, deliberate exclusion, and physical aggression. Teachers, counsellors, and other professionals reported on recognition and response, perceived competence, available support, and organisational constraints. An online questionnaire with tailored modules was administered to 136 LGBT+ and 584 cisheterosexual respondents aged 18 to 29 who reported retrospectively on secondary school, and to 187 members of school staff who completed the staff module.

Three empirical patterns oriented interpretation and implications. Visibility and concealment coexisted in structured ways. Many respondents reported LGBT+ classmates, while non-disclosure among LGBT+ students remained widespread and disclosures to staff were rare. Microaggressions were common and included teasing and slurs, rumours and outings without consent, exclusion, and instances of physical aggression. Classroom talk sometimes conveyed negative signals about LGBT+ topics, and heteronormative assumptions often organised lessons as if all students shared the same identities and family forms. Safety concerns clustered around relationships and locations, with reports of worry about safety, feelings of threat in spaces such as corridors and changing rooms, and avoidance of certain routes. These dynamics help to explain concealment as daily work and the need for predictable support.

Family climates added another layer. During secondary school, many respondents encountered negative or absent discussion of LGBT+ topics at home, which made school responses especially consequential for students who could not rely on support elsewhere. The study identified where pressure accumulated and how schools could ease it within existing arrangements. This could be achieved through a short staff protocol that names typical microaggressions and sets a simple sequence from recognition to minimal documentation and support, by building three or four question check-ins into routine tutor or counselling meetings so that diffuse patterns come into view without extra paperwork, and by ensuring that restorative options sit alongside disciplinary procedures where harm is serious, while referral routes are known and discreet so that help is accessible without unnecessary disclosure.

Although grounded in Slovenia, the patterns and measures are relevant across European secondary education systems operating under time constraints and public scrutiny, and across interlinked digital and school settings. The research formed part of the national ARIS project Z7-60184, and this paper reports survey findings from the broader mixed-methods study.

Design and participants The broader project employed a mixed-methods design. This paper reports the quantitative strand. An online questionnaire with tailored modules was administered to three groups representing the secondary school ecology. The youth component comprised 136 LGBT+ respondents and 584 cisheterosexual respondents aged 18 to 29, who reported retrospectively on their secondary schooling. The school staff component included 187 teachers, counsellors and other professionals who completed a staff version of the instrument. Fieldwork and quality control Data collection took place from 14 to 27 November 2025. Implementation was managed by a professional research agency on a secure platform, using standard procedures for invitation management, duplicate detection and basic attention checks. Sampling aimed for coverage by region and school type and achieved good comparability to the regional and demographic structure of young people, with a minor over-representation of the Central Slovenia region. The questionnaire was piloted for clarity and functionality before launch. Participation was voluntary, with informed consent, confidentiality safeguards and safe exit routes. The study received institutional ethics approval and adhered to professional standards for data protection and respondent care. Measures and analysis Items on microaggressions covered teasing and slurs related to appearance, clothing, speech or presumed LGBT+ identity, rumours and outings without consent, deliberate exclusion and physical aggression. Classroom discourse items recorded teacher negativity about LGBT+ topics and the use of heteronormative talk as an unmarked default. Safety items recorded worry about safety, feelings of threat in specific places such as corridors and changing rooms, and avoidance of spaces and routes. Family climate items captured supportive, neutral, negative or absent discussion of LGBT+ topics during secondary school. Analyses focused on descriptive statistics to establish scale and patterned differences across groups and settings, with emphasis on indicators that translate directly into school practice. Descriptive estimates were checked for internal consistency across related items and are presented with exact group sizes to support transparency. Scope note This submission presents quantitative results from the survey. The qualitative strand is under preparation and will be reported separately.

The results showed a gradual pressure arising from ordinary conversation, routine silences, and the movement of incidents and rumours between online platforms and daily school interactions. This pressure diminished belonging and harmed wellbeing for many students, even in the absence of overt violence, because uncertainty about recognition and response turned visibility into a calculated risk and made concealment a daily necessity. The presence of LGBT+ classmates was common, non-disclosure among LGBT+ students was widespread, and microaggressions were observed throughout classrooms and corridors, with adults sometimes engaging in negative talk and heteronormative assumptions shaping lessons. Safety concerns were concentrated in specific spaces that students learned to avoid, adding a spatial dimension to the experience of stress. The same evidence indicated practical ways to reduce this pressure with tools schools already have. Short check-ins embedded in routine tutor or counselling meetings revealed diffuse patterns without additional administrative burden. A brief written protocol for staff, outlining examples of microaggressions and a stepwise response from initial recognition to minimal documentation and support, reduced ambiguity for students and adults. Restorative conversations were available where appropriate, alongside disciplinary procedures for serious harm. Referral routes were known and discreet, making help accessible without excessive disclosure. Family climates were inconsistent, increasing the importance of predictable school action for those unable to rely on support elsewhere. These conclusions are transferable across European contexts facing similar accountability regimes and public scrutiny. They open a grounded discussion on low-cost measures that facilitate bystander action, make allyship visible, and link recognition to explicit procedures rather than individual discretion. The quantitative portrait provided here offers a basis for targeted improvements in safeguarding and pastoral care, and sets the stage for separate reporting of interview materials within the broader mixed-methods study.

Baricevic, M. L. in Kashubeck-West, S. (2019). They matter: Sexual orientation microaggressions in high school. Journal of LGBT Youth, 16, 83–106. Ceatha, N., Koay, A. C. C., Buggy, C., James, O., Tully, L., Bustillo, M. in Crowley, D. (2021). Protective factors for LGBTI+ youth wellbeing: A scoping review underpinned by recognition theory. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(21), 11682. Chavanduka, T. M., Gamarel, K. E., Todd, K. P., & Stephenson, R. (2021). Responses to the gender minority stress and resilience scales among transgender and nonbinary youth. Journal of LGBT Youth, 18(2), 135–154. Frost, D. M., & Meyer, I. H. (2023). Minority stress theory: Application, critique, and continued relevance. Current Opinion in Psychology, 51, 101579. Kosciw, J. G., Clark, C. M., Truong, N. L. in Zong, Y. (2022). The 2021 National School Climate Survey: The experiences of LGBTQ youth in our nation’s schools. GLSEN. Mann, T., Burns, E., Van Bergen, P. in Jones, T. (2025). Which LGBTQ+ inclusive school strategies support LGBTQ+ student, staff and parent perceptions of school climate? A latent class analysis. Journal of Homosexuality, 72(8), 1580–1606. Meyer, I. H. (1995). Minority stress and mental health in gay men. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 36(1), 38–56. Meyer, I. H. (2013). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 1(S), 3–26. Meyer, I. H. (2015). Resilience in the study of minority stress and health of sexual and gender minorities. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 2(3), 209–213. Nadal, K. L., Whitman, C. N., Davis, L. S., Erazo, T. & Davidoff, K. C. (2016). Microaggressions toward lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and genderqueer people: a review of the literature. The Journal of Sex Research, 53(4–5), 488–508. Torino, G. C., Rivera, D. P., Capodilupo, C. M., Nadal, K. L., & Sue, D. W. (Eds.). (2018). Microaggression theory: Influence and implications. John Wiley & Sons. Witcomb, G. L., Claes, L., Bouman, W. P., Nixon, E., Motmans, J. & Arcelus, J. (2019): Experiences and psychological wellbeing outcomes associated with bullying in treatment-seeking transgender and gender-diverse youth. LGBT health, 6(5), 216–226.