RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter contains the presentation of results in tables, analysis and

discussions of the gathered data. The data were taken from the responses of the

forty five (45) respondents from the students of University of Southern Mindanao

Kidapawan City Campus.

Perception of Female USM-KCC students towards having LGBT CR in the

campus

The table 1.1 shows the perception of female respondents in USM-KCC

towards having LGBT CR in the campus. Based on the data gathered the

respondents are agree on having separate comfort room for students who are

uncomfortable in male/female offered with a weighted mean of 3.07, comfort

room for LGBT lessens harassment (2.93), comfort room for LGBT lessens

criticism (3.13), comfort room for LGBT prevents bullying (2.93), comfort room for

LGBT prevents paruresis (2.80), comfort room for LGBT is good for the physical

health of the students (3.0), comfort room for LGBT is beneficial to the female

students (3.0), comfort room for LGBT is beneficial to the male students (3.07),

comfort room for LGBT is beneficial to the LGBT students (3.07), comfort room

for LGBT promotes gender equality (3.0), LGBT CR prevents social stigma

(2.80), LGBT CR is the way to accommodate all students who are in terms of
their personal necessity (2.87), and LGBT CR boost the confidence of every

student to show who they are (3.0). Respondents are strongly agreed that having

LGBT CR shows respect to the LGBT students as a human being with a mean of

3.27.

It therefore implies that most of the female respondents concur on

having LGBT CR in the campus .Because they see it as an aide to discrimination

and promote gender equality. As stated by Gajunera (2018), LGBT comfort room

is seen to reduce discrimination against people who have other sexual

preference. In Davao city, this move also strengthens the city’s implementation

on anti-discrimination ordinance approved in 2012, according to Vice Mayor

Bernard Al-ag.
Table 1.1.Perception of Female USM-KCC students towards having LGBT CR in the campus.
STATEMENT MEAN SD DESCRIPTIVE
EQUIVALENT
1. Comfort room for students who are 3.07 0.96 Agree
uncomfortable in male/ female is
needed in
USM-KCC
2. Comfort room for LGBT lessens 2.93 0.88 Agree
harassment.
3. Comfort room for LGBT lessens 3.13 0.83 Agree
Criticism.
4. Comfort room for LGBT prevents 2.93 0.70 Agree
bullying.
5. Comfort room for LGBT prevents 2.80 0.56 Agree
paruresis.
6. Comfort room for LGBT is good for the 3.00 0.76 Agree
physical health of the students.
7. Comfort room for LGBT is beneficial for 3.00 0.76 Agree
Female students.
8. Comfort room for LGBT is beneficial for 3.07 0.70 Agree
Male students.
9. Comfort room for LGBT is beneficial for 3.07 0.70 Agree
LGBT students.
10. Comfort room for LGBT promotes 3.00 0.65 Agree
gender
equality.
11. LGBT CR prevents social stigma. 2.80 0.68 Agree
12. LGBT CR is the way to accommodate 2.87 0.64 Agree
all
students in terms of their personal
necessity.
13. LGBT CR prevents embarrassment. 2.93 0.59 Agree
14. LGBT CR boost the confidence of every 3.00 0.65 Agree
student to show who they are.
15. LGBT CR shows respect to the LGBT 3.27 0.80 Strongly agree
students as a human being.
Scale:
3.25-4.00 strongly agree
2.50-3.24 agree
1.75-2.49 disagree
1.00-1.74 strongly disagree
Perception of Male USM-KCC students towards having LGBT CR in the

campus

The table 1.2 shows the perception of male respondents in USM-KCC

towards having LGBT CR in the campus. Based on the data gathered the

respondents are disagree on having a separate comfort room for students who

are uncomfortable in male /female with a mean of 2.27, comfort room for LGBT

lessens harassment with a mean of 2.33, comfort room for LGBT lessens

criticism with a mean of 2.47 and comfort room for LGBT prevents bullying with a

2.20 weighted mean.

Respondents agree in comfort room for LGBT prevents paruresis with a

mean of 2.60, comfort room for LGBT is good for the physical health of the

students with a mean of 2.60, comfort room for LGBT is beneficial to the female

students with a mean of 2.53, comfort room for LGBT is beneficial to the male

students with a mean of 2.73, comfort room for LGBT is beneficial to the LGBT

students with a mean of 3.00 and comfort room for LGBT promotes gender

equality with a 2.53 weighted mean.

Furthermore, the respondents disagree on LGBT CR prevents social

stigma with a mean of 2.47, LGBT CR is the way to accommodate all students in

terms of their personal necessity with a mean of 2.47 and LGBT CR boost the

confidence of every students to show who they are with a 2.40 weighted mean.
 In terms of LGBT CR prevents embarrassment respondents agree with a

mean of 2.73 and LGBT CR shows respect to the LGBT students as a human

being with a 2.60 weighted mean.

It implies that some of the male respondents disagree of having LGBT CR

in the campus, because they see it as unnecessary or useless. According to

Claudio (2012) sex-coded toilets (male/female toilets) are the way to keep people

safe. The idea, that mixing the biological sexes is an inducement to fornication,

has been cruel to transgender folk. Transwomen, are not allowed in female

bathrooms because somehow people manage to guess that they are

biologically male. They are also not allowed in male bathrooms because sex

coding is not only, about coding biology. It is also about coding sexual

orientation.

On the other hand, other male respondents have a positive response on

having LGBT CR.

Table 1.2.Perception of male USM-KCC students towards having LGBT CR in the campus.
STATEMENT MEAN SD DESCRIPTIVE
EQUIVALENT
1. Comfort room for students who are 2.27 0.80 Disagree
uncomfortable in male/ female is
needed in
USM-KCC
2. Comfort room for LGBT lessens 2.33 0.82 Disagree
harassment.
3. Comfort room for LGBT lessens 2.47 0.74 Disagree
Criticism.
4. Comfort room for LGBT prevents 2.20 0.68 Disagree
bullying.
5. Comfort room for LGBT prevents 2.60 0.74 Agree
paruresis.
6. Comfort room for LGBT is good for the 2.60 0.74 Agree
physical health of the students.
7. Comfort room for LGBT is beneficial for 2.53 0.74 Agree
Female students.
8. Comfort room for LGBT is beneficial for 2.73 0.80 Agree
Male students.
9. Comfort room for LGBT is beneficial for 3.00 0.76 Agree
LGBT students.
10. Comfort room for LGBT promotes 2.53 0.74 Agree
gender
equality.
11. LGBT CR prevents social stigma. 2.47 0.64 Disagree
12. LGBT CR is the way to accommodate 2.47 0.64 Disagree
all
students in terms of their personal
necessity.
13. LGBT CR prevents embarrassment. 2.73 0.59 Agree
14. LGBT CR boost the confidence of every 2.40 0.74 Disagree
student to show who they are.
15. LGBT CR shows respect to the LGBT 2.60 0.74 Agree
students as a human being.
Perception of LGBT USM-KCC students towards having LGBT CR in the

campus

The table 1.3 shows the perception of LGBT respondents in USM-KCC

towards having LGBT CR in the campus. Based on the data gathered the

respondents are agree on having comfort room for students who are

uncomfortable in male/female with a mean of 2.87, comfort room for LGBT

lessens harassment (2.87), comfort room for LGBT lessens criticism (3.13),

comfort room for LGBT prevents bullying (3.00), comfort room for LGBT prevents

paruresis (3.07), comfort room for LGBT is good for the physical health of the

students (2.93), comfort room for LGBT is beneficial to the female students (2.53)

and comfort room for LGBT is beneficial to the male students with a 2.80

weighted mean.

Respondents strongly agree in comfort room for LGBT is beneficial to the

LGBT students with a mean of 3.33.

On the other hand, respondents agree in terms of comfort room for LGBT

promotes gender equality with a mean of 3.13, LGBT CR prevents social stigma

with a mean of 2.73, LGBT CR is the way to accommodate all students in terms

of their personal necessity with a mean of 2.87, LGBT CR prevents

embarrassment with a mean of 2.87, LGBT CR will boost the confidence of every

student to show who they are with mean of 3.00 and LGBT CR shows respect to

the LGBT students as a human being with a 3.20 weighted mean.

 It therefore implies that LGBT respondents are agree on having LGBT CR

in the campus. They believe that this way they will experience the equality that

they desire. And it will be beneficial to them especially on health problems

because according to “GLSEN (the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education

Network) (2003) the nation's largest homosexual advocacy group focused

entirely on reaching public school students as young as kindergarten age”. Their

research shows that nearly two thirds of LGBT students avoid school bathrooms

because of feeling unsafe or uncomfortable. They risk verbal and physical

harassment, no matter which of the two, sex-segregated bathrooms they enter.

Table 1.3.Perception of LGBTQ USM-KCC students towards having LGBT CR in the campus.
STATEMENT MEAN SD DESCRIPTIVE
EQUIVALENT
1. Comfort room for students who are 2.87 0.92 Agree
uncomfortable in male/ female is
needed in
USM-KCC
2. Comfort room for LGBT lessens 2.87 0.83 Agree
harassment.
3. Comfort room for LGBT lessens 3.13 0.92 Agree
Criticism.
4. Comfort room for LGBT prevents 3.00 0.76 Agree
bullying.
5. Comfort room for LGBT prevents 3.07 0.88 Agree
paruresis.
6. Comfort room for LGBT is good for the 2.93 0.80 Agree
physical health of the students.
7. Comfort room for LGBT is beneficial for 2.53 0.99 Agree
Female students.
8. Comfort room for LGBT is beneficial for 2.80 1.08 Agree
Male students.
9. Comfort room for LGBT is beneficial for 3.33 0.82 Strongly agree
LGBT students.
10. Comfort room for LGBT promotes 3.13 0.99 Agree
gender
equality.
11. LGBT CR prevents social stigma. 2.73 0.88 Agree
12. LGBT CR is the way to accommodate 2.87 0.92 Agree
all
students in terms of their personal
necessity.
13. LGBT CR prevents embarrassment. 2.87 0.99 Agree
14. LGBT CR boost the confidence of every 3.00 1.00 Agree
student to show who they are.
15. LGBT CR shows respect to the LGBT 3.20 0.77 Agree
students as a human being.
 The table 2 shows the significant difference on the perception of having

LGBT CR in the campus between male, female and LGBT.

Based on the gathered data, in male versus female there is a high

significant difference, this means that the perception of male towards having

LGBT CR in the campus is not the same as the female perception.

In female versus LGBT there is no significant difference, this means that

the perception of LGBT respondents on having LGBT CR in the campus are

somehow similar to the perception of the Female respondents.

On the other hand, in LGBT versus Male there is a high significant

difference, this means that the perception of LGBT respondents towards having

LGBT CR in the campus is not the same as the Male perception.

Table 2. Test of difference on the perception of having LGBT CR in the campus between Male
and Female respondents.
Variables Mean T p-value Decision
Male 2.53 7.60 0.00 Highly significant
Female 2.99 difference

Female 2.99 0.58 0.56 Not significant

LGBT 2.96 Difference

LGBT 2.96 5.82 0.00 Highly Significant

Male 2.53 Difference