CHAPTER IV

Presentation, Analysis and Interpretation of Data

TABLE 4.1: FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF THE DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE

OF THE RESPONDENTS

Table 4.1.1: Profile of the Respondents in Terms of Age

Age Frequency Percentage

17-19 142 50%

20-22 116 41%

23-25 23 8%

26 and above 4 1%

Total 285 100%

Table 4.1.1 shown that 50% of the respondents were aged

17-19 with a frequency of 142, followed by 41% of

respondents who are aged 20-22 with a frequency of 116, then

the age bracket of 23-25 which obtained a frequency of 23

which is 8%, lastly, 26 and above has a frequency of 4, with

a percentage of 1% of the 285 respondents. This indicates

that majority of the respondents were younger and possibly

at the first and second year. This factor may affect their

answers depending on their level of maturity.

Table 4.1.2: Profile of the Respondents in Terms of Gender

Gender Frequency Percentage

Man 78 27%

Woman 164 58%

LGBTQ 43 15%
 Total 285 100%

Results shown that 58% of the respondents were women

with a frequency of 164, followed by 27% men with a total

frequency of 78, lastly LGBTQ obtained the lowest percentage

of 15% with a frequency of 43. Our priority respondents,

LGBTQ, obtained the lowest frequency, possibly because some

who were still questioning indicated only their sexuality.

But, on the other hand, women may also greatly affect this

study because of their high involvement particularly in

harassment and intimidation.

Table 4.1.3: Profile of the Respondents in Terms of Year

Level

Year Frequency Percentage

1st year 155 54%

2nd year 30 11%

3rd year 42 15%

4th year 39 14%

5th year 19 7%

Total 285 100%

Table 4.1.3 shows that majority of the respondents were

1st year students with the total of 155 or 54% respondents,

followed by a total of 42 3rd year students which is

equivalent to 15%, next is 4th year students with a total of

39 and a percentage of 14%, then the 2 nd year students

obtained a frequency of 30 which is 11%, and lastly 5th year

students with 19 or 7%. The researchers obtained low average

of higher year level because some of the OJT students were

not on the campus.

Table 4.1.4: Profile of the Respondents in Terms of Course

Course Frequency Percentage

BSBA 125 44%

BSIT 24 8%

BSAT 37 13%

BEED 36 13%

BSED 28 10%

BSA 35 12%

Total 285 100%

The table reveals that 44% of the respondents are from

BSBA, while 13% are both from BEED and BSAT, followed by 12%

from BSA, 10% from BSED and 8% from BSIT. BSBA is the course with

most of the respondents probably because both of the schools where the researchers

conducted the survey offers that particular course.

TABLE 4.2: PERSPECTIVES OF THE RESPONDENTS REGARDING THE

INSTALLATION OF LGBTQ RESTROOMS IN TERTIARY SCHOOLS

Table 4.2.1: Experiences/Encounters about Different Ways of

Discrimination through Harassment

Indicators WM Verbal Rankin

Descriptio g

I experienced/I had witnessed 2.82 Sometimes 2

someone being teased, insulted

and humiliated

I experienced/I had witnessed 2.65 Sometimes 3

someone being verbally

threatened

I experienced/I had witnessed 2.64 Sometimes 4

someone being cursed

I have/I had witnessed someone 2.88 Sometimes 1

received sexual comments, jokes,

questions and gestures

I experienced/I had witnessed 2.22 Seldom 5

someone being peeked while using

the toilet

COMPOSITE MEAN 2.64 Sometimes

Results shown that the perspective of the respondents

regarding the installation of LGBTQ restrooms in terms of

harassment in the indicator "I have/I had witnessed someone

received sexual comments, jokes, questions and gestures"

obtained a highest mean score of 2.88 which is equivalent to

"sometimes" , while respondents who had "experienced/had

witnessed someone being teased, insulted and humiliated" got

a mean score of 2.82, "sometimes" , followed by the mean

score of 2.65 which was the respondents who had

"experienced/had witnessed someone being verbally

threatened" with a verbal description of "sometimes" , next

were the respondents who had "experienced/had witnessed

someone being cursed" with a mean score of 2.64 verbally

described as "sometimes" , lastly the respondents who had

"experienced/had witnessed someone being peeked while using

the toilet" obtained the lowest mean score of 2.22 that

verbally described as "seldom" . These results shown that

there many are cases of harassment happening in schools’

restrooms, particularly verbal sexual abuses, which were,

the researchers conclude, that were experienced frequently

by women and LGBTQ members.

Indicators WM Verbal Rankin

Descriptio g

I experienced/I had witnessed 2.6 Sometimes 2

someone being yelled 9

I have/I had witnessed someone 2.5 Sometimes 3

received glares, scowls, and 9

casual eye rolls

I experienced/I had witnessed 2.3 Seldom 5

someone being frightened by 7

destroying/smashing things

I feel/I witnessed someone who 2.7 Sometimes 1

feels insecure about my/their 2

gender

I have/I had witnessed someone 2.5 Sometimes 4

who have received several 8

glances due to unfamiliarity

COMPOSITE MEAN 2.5 Sometimes

Table 4.2.2: Experiences/Encounters about Different Ways of

Discrimination through Intimidation

Results shown that the perspectives of the respondents

regarding the installation of LGBTQ restrooms in terms of

intimidation, respondents who had "felt/witnessed someone

who feels insecure about my/their gender" got the highest

mean of 2.72 which is available." , followed by "I experienced/I

had witnessed someone being yelled" which is "sometimes" with

a mean of 2.69, next is "I have/I had witnessed someone who

have received several glances due to unfamiliarity" which is

"sometimes" with a mean of 2.59, while "I have/I had

witnessed someone received glares, scowls, and casual eye

rolls"obtained a verbal interpretaion "sometimes" with a mean of 2.58,

and lastly "I experienced/I had witnessed someone being

frightened by destroying/smashing things" got the lowest

mean score of 2.38 which is "seldom" . Intimidation happen

very frequent, inside and even outside of restrooms. These

are very common, yet, most often experienced regardless of

age and gender, but most frequently by LGBTQ people.

Table 4.2.3: Experiences/Encounters about Different Ways of

Discrimination through Refusal of Access

 Indicators WM Verbal Ranking

Description

I have/I had witnessed someone 2.29 Seldom 3

who have been told not to use the

restroom

I have/I had witnessed someone 2.10 Seldom 5

who have been forcefully kicked

out of the restroom

I have/I had witnessed someone 2.38 Seldom 2

who have been told that I/they

got to the wrong restroom

I have/I had witnessed someone 2.29 Seldom 4

who have been feeling like I

am/they are not welcome to use

the restroom

I have/I had witnessed someone 2.44 Seldom 1

who have been noticing that

people within the same restroom

as me/them are uncomfortable or

unsecured

COMPOSITE MEAN 2.30 Seldom

Results shown that the perspectives of the

respondents regarding the installation of LGBTQ restrooms in

terms of refusal to access, the indicator "I have/I had

witnessed someone who have been noticing that people within

the same restroom as me/them are uncomfortable or unsecured"

obtained a highest mean score of 2.44 which is "seldom",

followed by "I have/I had witnessed someone who have been

told that I/they got to the wrong restroom" with a mean

score of 2.38 which is "seldom" , while "I have/I had

witnessed someone who have been told not to use the

restroom" and "I have/I had witnessed someone who have been

feeling like I am/they are not welcome to use the restroom"

both obtained a mean score of 2.29 which is verbally

described as "seldomc, lastly, "I have/I had witnessed

someone who have been forcefully kicked out of the restroom"

obtained the lowest mean score of 2.10 which is "seldom

also" . Cases of refusal of access to LGBTQ people were

rarely experienced because of people, instead of refusing

LGBTQ from accessing the restrooms, they would just ignore

them because they were also used to it.

Table 4.2.4: Experiences/Encounters about Different Ways of

Discrimination through Violence

Indicators WM Verbal Ranking

Description

I experienced/I had witnessed 2.24 Seldom 3

someone being threatened by force

I experienced/I had witnessed 2.33 Seldom 2

someone being harmed

I experienced/I had witnessed 2.10 Seldom 5

someone being sexually assaulted

(inappropriate touching, etc.)

I experienced/I had witnessed 2.51 Sometimes 1

someone being involved into

fights

I experienced/I had witnessed 2.20 Seldom 4

someone who got their personal

things destroyed intentionally

COMPOSITE MEAN 2.28 Seldom

Results shown that under the perspectives of the

respondents regarding the installation of LGBTQ restrooms in

terms of violence the indicator that obtained a highest mean

score of 2.51 is "I experienced/I had witnessed someone

being involved into fights" which is verbally described as

"sometimes", followed by "I experienced/I had witnessed

someone being harmed" with a mean score of 2.33 which is

"seldom" , next is "I experienced/I had witnessed someone

being threatened by force" with a mean score of 2.24 which

is verbally described as "seldom", while "I experienced/I had

witnessed someone who got their personal things destroyed

intentionally" obtained a mean score of 2.20 which is

verbally described as "seldom" , lastly, "I experienced/I had

witnessed someone being sexually assaulted (inappropriate

touching, etc.)" obtained a lowest mean score of 2.10 which

is verbally described as "seldom". These scenarios does not frequently

occur since there were established school policy against violence that might have

equivalent punishment.

Table 4.2.5: Perception of the Respondents towards the

Single Stalled Form of Restrooms

 Indicators WM Verbal Ranking

Description

It may limit the accessibility 2.91 Agree 2

It is secured and private 2.93 Agree 1

It is comfortable 2.88 Agree 3

It is expensive 2.53 Agree 5

It may create isolated atmosphere 2.63 Agree 4

COMPOSITE MEAN 2.78 Agree

Results show that under perspectives of the respondents

regarding the installation of LGBTQ restrooms in terms of

single-stall restrooms the indicator obtained the highest

mean score of 2.93 is "it is secured and private" which is verbally

described as "agree", followed by "it may limit the

accessibility" which obtained a mean score of 2.91 which is

also "agree", next is "it is comfortable" which obtained a mean

of 2.88 which is verbally described as "agree", and the indicator

"it may create isolated atmosphere" obtained a mean of 2.63

which is "agree" , lastly, "it is expensive" obtained a

lowest mean score of 2.53 which is "agree" also.

Table 4.2.6: Perception of the Respondents towards the

Multiple-Stalled Form of Restrooms

Indicators WM Verbal Ranking

Description

It will maximize the 2.73 Agree 2

accessibility/usage at a time

It will minimize the cost by 2.61 Agree 3

converting some of the old

restrooms

It is good for socializing 2.57 Agree 4

It may create welcoming 2.55 Agree 5

environment

It may reduce the feeling of 2.76 Agree 1

being discriminated

COMPOSITE MEAN 2.64 Agree

The results shown that under the Perspectives of the

respondents regarding the installation of LGBTQ restrooms in

terms of multiple-stall restrooms the indicator that

obtained a highest mean is "it may reduce the feeling of

being discriminated" which obtained 2.76 which is "agree",

followed by "it will maximize the accessibility/usage at a

time" which obtained a mean score of 2.73 which is "agree" ,

next is "it will minimize the cost by converting some of the

old restrooms" which is agree, with a mean score of 2.61,

while "it is good for socializing" obtained 2.57 of mean

score which is "agree" and lastly, "it may create welcoming

environment" obtained the lowest mean score of 2.55 which is

"agree" .