QUEERING SEX ED 1

Queering Sex Ed:

The Importance of Inclusive Sex Education in K-12 Schooling

Andy Talajkowski

University of California, Los Angeles

Note to reader: While people who have non-heterosexual and/or cisgender identities are

commonly referred to as “LGBT” or “LGBTQ,” in this paper I will substitute those terms for

“queer and transgender (trans) people.” The reason I choose to do this is to be more inclusive of

the many different identities people occupy, and to also draw importance to the experiences of

trans people within the community, as so often “LGBT” has only focused on LGB people.
QUEERING SEX ED 2

Andy Talajkowski
11 December 2017
Final Paper
Queering Sex Ed: The Importance of Inclusive Sex Education in K-12 Schooling

Bay-Cheng (2003) defines school based sex education as “a fundamental force in the

very construction and definition of adolescent sexuality” (p. 62). Having participated in sex

education in secondary school, I can acknowledge the impact these programs had in their

attempts to illustrate ‘normal’ sexual behavior – particularly, how as a queer and gender non-

conforming student, my identities were left unacknowledged in their definitions. My experience

is not rare; only 12 percent of youth in 2015 reported that their sex education curriculum in

school addressed queer relationships – with no statistic on whether the gender spectrum was

discussed (A Call To Action, 2015). With the 2015 National Climate Survey from GLSEN (2015)

revealing queer and trans students face high rates of bullying, missed class time, and

discrimination from both peers and school staff, the widespread avoidance of queer and trans

education is being criticized as a contributor to hostile school climates. I was curious as to how

sexual orientation and gender identity are depicted in current U.S. sex education in K-12 schools,

and the impacts these portrayals have on the physical, sexual, and mental health of queer and

trans students. In my paper, I will argue that sex education in the U.S school system often

actively erases queer and transgender identities and perspectives in favor of heteronormative and

cissexist viewpoints, or provides narrow and stigmatizing portrayals of the queer and trans

community, contributing to unhealthy school atmospheres and sexual behaviors for queer and

trans students. I will explain how state and federal standards and social biases contribute to the

limitations for portraying queer and trans issues, and then demonstrate the importance of

inclusive sex education by showing its potential impact on queer and trans students. I will end

with suggestions of how queer and trans issues can be integrated into sex education.
QUEERING SEX ED 3

Government Funding and Standards For Sex Education

State and federal guidelines to sex education in K-12 schools have historically been queer

and trans exclusive, and even recent policy changes largely fail to acknowledge the community.

From the introduction of federal sex education funding in the 1970s to the Obama

administration, federal support for sex education programs was narrowed to an abstinence-only

approach (“A Brief History,” n.d.) Abstinence-only education is notoriously queerphobic.

Standards set by Section 510 of Title V of the Social Security Act of 1996 (1996) for federally

funded abstinence-only programs included teaching a “mutually faithful monogamous

relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity,” and

that “sexual activity outside of the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological

and physical effects” (Bleakley, Hennessy & Fishbein, 2006, p. 1152). Given marriage was

exclusive to heterosexual couples until 2015, these requirements did particular harm to queer

students as they made queerness by default sexually deviant (Marriage Center, n.d.).

Sex education funding received substantial restructuring under the Obama administration,

who shifted two-thirds of the financial support given to abstinence-only programs to curriculum

that includes information on safer sex practices; however, a significant amount of that money

($110 million) went to the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Initiative (“A Brief History,” n.d.). While

queer and trans students may benefit from programs that contains sexual health information such

as contraception, the initiative is unfortunately still limited as it contextualizes sex education

within heterosexual encounters. Advocates were also confused as to why STD and HIV

prevention efforts were not included within the initiative, stating, “The Obama administration

and Congress missed an opportunity to provide true, comprehensive sexuality education that
QUEERING SEX ED 4

promotes healthy behaviors and relationships for all young people, including lesbian, gay,

bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) youth” (“A Brief History,” n.d., para. 9).

Under the Affordable Care Act, another portion of funding known as the Personal

Responsibility Education Program provided a resource for more comprehensive sex education

(“A Brief History,” n.d.). Most of the funding is available as state grants, which 43 states applied

for when the program was launched – if received, states must address abstinence along with

other methods of pregnancy, HIV/AIDS, and STD prevention, such as contraception, in sex

education (“A Brief History,” n.d.). Yet while PREP “encourages” programs to be inclusive of

queer and trans youth, it is not a requirement (“Personal Responsibility Education Program,”

n.d.). PREP may be a triumph for more extensive sex education, but it is another instance of

refusal by the federal government to mandate that sex education address the queer and trans

community.

With no federal requirement, it is up to the state to choose whether to have inclusive sex

education. While information on HIV/AIDS prevention is provided in 34 states and District of

Columbia, only 24 states and the District of Columbia require that sex education be taught in

schools, and the standards for these programs are often negligent (“Sex and HIV Education,”

2017). 13 states require the information in sex education by medically accurate (“Sex and HIV

Education,” 2017). A meager 12 states require discussion of sexual orientation, and three of

those states require any mention of non-heterosexual orientations be in a negative context. (“Sex

and HIV Education,” 2017). Only four states mandate sex education be inclusive of queer and

trans students (A Call to Action, 2015). Abstinence is still the most popular approach for sex and

HIV/AIDS prevention education – 37 states require abstinence be taught, and 27 of those states

require abstinence is stressed (“Sex and HIV Education,” 2017). Bay-Cheng (2003) notes that
QUEERING SEX ED 5

given the confines of state and federal requirements, and says, “Sexuality educators face

formidable obstacles to enriching and improving practice” (p. 64). With restrictive federal

funding and an absence of inclusive state standards, current government assistance with sex

education limits the possibilities for inclusive programs.

Heteronormativity in Sex Education

MacGillivray (2000) states that American society is based on heteronormativity – “a

culture where heterosexuality is taken to be the norm,” and that the systematic exclusion of queer

identities and systematic inclusion of heterosexuality that results from heteronormativity extends

into the environments of U.S schools (p. 303). While MacGillivray (2000) provides examples of

heteronormativity such as the awarding of homecoming ‘king’ and ‘queen,’ the bias also

manifests itself within sex education. Bay-Cheng (2003) explains how sex education textbooks

shift from using “we” to “they” when referencing queer people, exposing what sex education

views to be normal. Queer youth interviewed about their sex education experiences in studies by

Gowen and Winges-Yanez (2014) and Pingel, Thomas, Harmell, and Bauermeister (2013) also

recounted the common heteronormativity encountered in curriculum. A common criticism of sex

education from the former students was that it focuses on sexual encounters between exclusively

men and women. The majority of interviewees experienced some form of abstinence education,

which, as previously mentioned, centers sexual activity within straight relationships (Gowen et

al., 2014; Pingel et al., 2013). The emphasis on “heterosexual, monogamous, penile vaginal sex”

intrinsically ties healthy sexual behavior to heterosexual marriage (Pingel et al., 2013, para. 18).

Promotion of heteronormativity is stretched to family life – one student remembers how one

educator dismissed same-gender parenting because the children would grow up with a lack of
QUEERING SEX ED 6

exposure to the knowledge of another gender (Gowen et al., 2014). Heteronormativity in sex

education reveals itself by making sexual encounters revolve around heterosexual interactions.

With the focus on heteronormative behaviors, queer students are othered and suppressed

within the sex education classroom. Gowen (et al., 2014) defines two ways in which queer and

transgender issues were excluded from sex education. ‘Passive silencing’ is the act of simply

leaving queer and trans people out of the conversation (Gowen et al., 2014). ‘Active silencing’ is

the expressed attempt to stop queer and trans students from discussing their sexuality and gender

during sex education programs (Gowen et al., 2014). One example students described of this

experience was teachers not answering or avoiding their questions relating to their identities in

class (Gowen et al., 2014). Lund and Callaghan (2012) also recognize the significance of leaving

queer and transgender people out of the classroom, employing the term “null curriculum”: the

“express absence of something reveals society’s opinion towards it just as much as something

that is overly taught” (p. 1094). The majority of youth interviewed in both studies (Gowen et al.,

2014; Pingel et. al, 2013) affirmed that they found it difficult to relate to the material in their

school programs. Pingel (et al., 2013) found that not one of the thirty young men who

participated in their study felt they were given useful information that could relate to their

sexuality in class, and many felt not ready for sexual experiences with people of the same

gender. As Bay-Cheng (2003) notes, “the working definitions and prescribed norms of

adolescent sexuality are narrow and exclusionary,” and the intentional exclusion of queer and

transgender identities is an important reflection on the infiltration of heterosexual hegemony into

American sex education (p. 64).

QUEERING SEX ED 7

The Influence of Gender Roles and the Gender Binary in Sex Education

While heteronormativity has been criticized by many sex education studies, the

enforcement of the gender binary is an even more prevalent assumption in schools that often

goes unacknowledged. Transgender students, especially those holding non-binary identities, are

woefully ignored within sex education, even those that include “LGBT” curriculum. Of the many

studies I referenced for this paper that claimed to study sex education from the queer and trans

perspective, gender identity was simply lumped together with sexual orientation – much of the

information focused just on LGB issues, and it was difficult to find in-depth, if any, discussion of

the experiences of specifically transgender students or how varying gender identities are

addressed within the context of sex education. Any discussion of gender in sex education in my

research occurred almost exclusively within the concepts of the gender binary. As one student

recalls, “Teachers don’t talk about gender identity. They assume everyone’s male and female’’

(Gowen et al., 2014, p. 6). Negating discussion of gender identity is especially detrimental given

the coverage of anatomy in sex education – with lack of an example from my research, I pull

from my own experiences as a non-binary student in high school sex education, where study of

sex organs explicitly related to gender, falsely portraying them as indistinguishable.

The gender binary is imposed not only through the exclusion of genders beyond ‘man’

and ‘woman,’ but also through the perpetuation of gendered stereotypes. Gender roles are

pervasive throughout schooling – Sadker (2012) observes that in curriculum, men are often

portrayed as “brave, athletic, [and] achieving,” while women are seen as “dependent, passive,

fearful, docile, and even victims” (p. 958). These assumptions extend to sex education programs.

Bay-Cheng (2003) warns of the harmful manifestations of masculinity and femininity in sexual

characteristics that are applied to students in sex education. Heteronormativity and

QUEERING SEX ED 8

cisnormativity collide in the common definition of “normality” in sex education: heterosexual

relationships where men and women abide to regulated gender behaviors. Bay-Cheng (2003)

states, “Whereas boys are active and desiring sexual subjects, girls are passive and desired sexual

objects” (p. 68). These classifications are a burden for trans students attempting to dispel the

gendered expectations placed on them, and are harmful as well to their cisgender peers. Through

the perpetuation of gender roles and the gender binary in sex education, as well as the lack of

academic focus on gender identity, trans student experiences and issues are erased within sex

education.

Limited Portrayals of Queer and Trans People in Inclusive Sex Education

While some sex education programs do make efforts to include queer and trans issues

within their curriculum, their method of inclusion tends to pigeonhole queer and trans

experiences. A large portion of the discussion of queer and trans people is dedicated to

HIV/AIDS and STDs. One queer student said, “[We learned that] homosexuality goes with

disease—disease and drag queens” (Gowen et al., 2014, p. 5). Gowen (et al., 2014) addresses

how sex education pathologizes queer and trans people by relating them solely to HIV/AIDS and

risky sexual activity. Discussion of HIV/AIDS as well is often limited exclusively to men who

have sex with other men (MSM), even though people of all sexualities and genders are

susceptible to the virus (Pingel et al., 2013). While queer and trans youth have a higher

likelihood of contracting STDs and HIV/AIDS, and prevention education is important, it is

damaging to have the queer and trans community associated only with sickness (A Call to

Action, 2015). Queer men are also typecast as hypersexual. Youth interviewed by Pingel (et al.,

2013) felt that since there was no discussion of the queer community outside of their sexual

activity in both sex education or in other curriculum, they only received a limited view of what it
QUEERING SEX ED 9

meant to be queer and male. One former student wished he had had an “acknowledgement that

gay people are more than simply sexual beings” (Pingel et al., 2013, para. 21). Some efforts at

queer and transgender inclusion are downright surface level and unhelpful. Multiple students

from Gowen’s (et al., 2013) study who attended different schools said they were shown the

movie Philadelphia, which features a main character who is gay and HIV positive, but no

productive, if any, discussion of these themes followed the film. The movie is an example of the

token acknowledgment of queer and trans people within the sex education classroom. While

attempts to cover the queer and trans community are the first step to having fully inclusive

education, many endeavors result in queer and trans people being the stereotypical sidebar to sex

education curriculum.

Importance of Queer and Trans Representation in Sex Education

Inclusive sex education is essential to creating a supportive school climate as well as

encouraging healthy sexual behaviors for queer and trans students. Queer and trans youth are at

higher risk to engage in unsafe sexual activity than their heterosexual, cisgender peers.

According to the CDC Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (2011), queer adolescents are

less likely to use safer sex practices (Pingel et al., 2013). Transgender youth are also reported to

inconsistently use condoms when engaging in sexual activity (A Call to Action, 2017). Queer

youth are more likely to initiate sexual activity at an earlier age, have sex while intoxicated, and

be diagnosed with HIV or a different STI (A Call to Action, 2017). Queer men and transgender

women who have sex with men make up the majority of new HIV infections in the age range of

13 to 24 (“A Call to Action,” 2017). Pingel (et al., 2013) suggests lack of adequate sex education

may contribute to risky sexual encounters: “Policies limiting access to same-sex sex education

and comprehensive sexual health programs…may exacerbate many of the sexual risk factors
 QUEERING SEX ED
10

(e.g., limited knowledge regarding safer sex strategies with same-sex partners) that place YMSM

at greater risk for HIV and sexually transmitted infections (STIs)” (para. 1). While the article

addresses specifically MSM, this correlation applies to all queer and trans youth who receive

unsubstantial sex education.

Queer and transgender youth are also subjected to negative school environments which

threaten their physical and mental health. In 2015, 70.8 percent of queer and trans students

reported being verbally harassed in relation to their sexual orientation, and 54.5 percent in

relation to their gender presentation (GLSEN, 2015). 27 percent of students were also physically

harassed at school because of their sexual orientation, and 20 percent for their gender

presentation (GLSEN, 2015). These frequent instances of multiple forms of aggression against

queer and trans identities resulted in 57.6 percent of queer and trans students doubting their

safety at school because of their sexual orientation, and 43.3 percent because of their gender

expression (GLSEN, 2015). Having over half of a student population report feeling unsafe on

school campus speaks to the need for inclusive curriculum.

The inclusion of comprehensive sexual education that explores various gender identities

and sexual orientations could drastically improve the experiences of queer and trans youth in

their relationships and in school. GLSEN (2015) shows that queer and trans inclusive curriculum

leads to more friendly school atmospheres: students were 22.9 percent less likely to hear the term

‘gay’ used in a negative connotation, and 17.7 percent less likely to hear derogatory comments

about the transgender community in schools where inclusive education was implemented.

Students were also more likely to feel connected to their school (GLSEN, 2015). While these

statistics apply to general inclusion of queer and trans friendly education, A Call for Action:

LGBTQ Youth Need Inclusive Sex Education (2015) notes that “sex education…is a logical
 QUEERING SEX ED
11

venue to help young people learn about identity and encourage acceptance for LGBTQ people

and families” (p. 6). Research on specifically queer inclusive sex education has also shown to

decrease bullying in relation to sexual orientation (A Call for Action, 2015). With sex education

as a natural outlet for discussion of the queer and trans community, programs that address queer

and trans issues have the potential of substantially improving academic environments.

The positive effects of inclusive sex education on school climate can also extend to

students’ sexual experiences. Given the recent implementation of inclusive sex education, there

are currently few studies that have shown the impacts of the programs on the sexual activity of

queer and trans students. However, sex education that addresses safer sex practices has had a

drastic effect on the well-being of heterosexual, cisgender youth. Comprehensive sex education

programs have been effective at decreasing rates of HIV/STDs and increasing use of

contraception (A Call to Action, 2015). If sex education programs can be expanded to cover

various sexualities and gender identities, these positive results may be extended to queer and

trans students. Pingel (et al., 2013) highlights that there is a “decrease in sexual risk when youth

are presented with sexual health information that is relevant to their sexual behaviors or sexual

identity” (para). Preliminary attempts at inclusive education have shown to be effective: queer

students who experienced inclusive HIV prevention education also reported having fewer sexual

partners and decreased use of substances before engaging in sexual activity (A Call to Action,

2015). Queer and trans friendly sex education can therefore be a tool to improving the physical

and sexual health of queer and trans students.

 QUEERING SEX ED
12

Arguments Against Inclusive Sex Education

Despite its many benefits to queer and trans students, there are some dissenters to the

inclusion of queer and trans visibility in sex education in K-12 schools. One of the most popular

arguments against the discussion of the queer and trans community, as explained by

MacGillivray (2000), is that it is not the place of a school to be “teaching values”; instead,

parents should be allowed to address LGBTQ topics with their children (p. 316). Indeed, part of

this viewpoint is reflected by one of the pro-sex education articles I found during my research,

which argued that while factual information should be left to educators, “We believe that parents

should play the primary role in imparting to their children social, cultural and religious values

regarding intimate and sexual relationships” (Shtarkshall, Santelli, & Hirsch, 2007, p. 116-117).

State standards reflect these opinions: 38 states and the District of Columbia mandate parental

involvement in both sex and HIV prevention education (“Sex and HIV Education,” 2017). Three

of those states specifically require parental consent for students to participate in sex education,

and 36 states and the District of Columbia allow parents to remove their children from sex

education programs in school (“Sex and HIV Education,” 2017). MacGillivray (2000) points out

the hypocrisy of the ‘values’ argument, as it is impossible for schools to convey no values

through curriculum – in fact, if a school were to refuse to discuss queer and trans issues because

of this reason, they would “reinforce the values of the status quo” (p. 316). According to A Call

to Action: LGBTQ Youth Need Inclusive Sex Education (n.d.), parents also overwhelmingly

believe queer issues should be included in curriculum – 85 percent of parents supported inclusion

of sexual orientation in sex education in high school, and 78 percent supported inclusion in

middle school (this statistic, unfortunately, does not reflect opinions towards inclusion of gender

identity). The fact that parents are in favor of discussion of the queer community in classrooms
 QUEERING SEX ED
13

refutes the concept that it should be an issue dealt with exclusively at home. The leading

arguments against inclusive sex education rely on vague theoretical groundings and are not

reflective of the actual beliefs of families in the United States.

Conclusion: What We Can Do to Improve Sex Education

While the majority of approaches to sex education I analyzed are lacking in

comprehensive coverage of queer and transgender topics, there have been many models provided

in my research with methods of improving current programs. Freire (1968) in Pedagogy of the

Oppressed wrote than when society attempts to equalize the oppressor and the oppressed, it must

be the oppressed who enacts the change. With this knowledge in hand, I turned to the advice

contributed by queer and transgender youth in Pingel’s (et al., 2013) and Gowen’s (et al., 2014)

studies as to what should be encompassed in inclusive sex education. There was a universal call

for broader definitions of sexual acts beyond just penile-vaginal intercourse, and the inclusion of

topics that applied to all students, such as STI prevention, relationship advice, and anatomy that

is inclusive of transgender youth (Gowen et al., 2014; Pingel et al., 2013). In order to counteract

the narrow focus of queer and trans people within just sexual activity, adolescents also suggested

pairing queer and trans sex education and history in order to provide a balanced perspective of

the community (Pingel et al., 2013). Another important request from queer and trans youth was

that sex education be extended outside of just time in class, in the form of resources any student

could discreetly access in the classroom or online (Gowen et al., 2014). These demands construct

a balanced, in-depth, and accessible approach to showing what it means to hold queer and trans

identities. There is also a bill that was reintroduced to Congress in 2016 that could fund these

model programs: The Real Education for Healthy Youth Act divests money from abstinence-
 QUEERING SEX ED
14

only programs and puts it towards comprehensive sex education that would be inclusive of queer

and trans youth (Phillip & Marr, 2016).

Ultimately the implementation of the suggestions made by queer and trans youth, as well

as the multiple professionals I have cited who have studied sex education, could lead to

considerably better life experiences for queer and trans people in the United States. It is essential

to understand that inclusion of queer and trans issues within sex education is not simply

preferred – it is truly necessary. Some academics have gone as far to say that sex education is an

issue of human rights - Dr. John Santelli, the Society for Adolescent Medicine, and the American

College Health Association define the purposeful withholding of “scientifically accurate

information” in relation to sex education as an issue of immorality (Bleakley et al., 2006, p.

1155). If proper development of sexual behavior has been verified by numerous health officials

as being instrumental to the well-being of adolescents, then sex education programs must make

themselves accessible to queer and trans youth.

 QUEERING SEX ED
15

Works Cited
A Brief History of Federal Funding for More Comprehensive Approaches to Sex Education.
(2017). Siecus.org. Retrieved 9 December 2017, from
http://www.siecus.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=page.viewpage&pageid=1341&
A Call to Action: LGBTQ Youth Need Inclusive Sex Education. (2015). Retrieved from
http://answer.rutgers.edu/file/A%20Call%20to%20Action%20LGBTQ%20Youth%20Need
%20Inclusive%20Sex%20Education%20FINAL.pdf
Bay-Cheng, L. (2003). The Trouble of Teen Sex: The construction of adolescent sexuality
through school-based sexuality education. Sex Education, 3(1), 61-74.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1468181032000052162
Bleakley, A., Hennessy, M. and Fishbein, M. (2006). Public Opinion on Sex Education in US
Schools. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 160(11).
Freire, P. (1968). Pedagogy of the Oppressed (pp. 1-74). New York: Continuum.
GLSEN. (2015). The 2015 National School Climate Survey. GLSEN. Retrieved from
https://www.glsen.org/sites/default/files/2015%20National%20GLSEN%202015%20Nation
al%20School%20Climate%20Survey%20%28NSCS%29%20-%20Full%20Report_0.pdf
Gowen, K. and Winges-Yanez, N. (2014). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and
questioning youths' perspectives of inclusive school-based sexuality education. The Journal
of Sex Research, 51(7).
HRC's Marriage Center | Human Rights Campaign. (2017). hrc.org. Retrieved 9 December
2017, from https://www.hrc.org/campaigns/marriage-center
Lund, D. and Callaghan, T. (2012). Homophobia. Encyclopedia of Diversity of Education, 2,
pp.1093-1096.
MacGillivray, I. (2000). EDUCATIONAL EQUITY FOR GAY, LESBIAN, BISEXUAL,
TRANSGENDERED, AND QUEER/QUESTIONING STUDENTS The Demands of
Democracy and Social Justice for America’s Schools. Education and Urban Society, 32(3),
pp.303-323.
Personal Responsibility Education Program. Advocatesforyouth.org. Retrieved 9 December
2017, from http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/1742-personal-responsibility-
education-program-prep
Pingel, E., Thomas, L., Harmell, C. and Bauermeister, J. (2013). Creating Comprehensive,
Youth Centered, Culturally Appropriate Sex Education: What Do Young Gay, Bisexual, and
Questioning Men Want?. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 10(4).
Phillip, J., & Marr, A. (2016). The Real Education for Healthy Youth Act.
Advocatesforyouth.org. Retrieved 9 December 2017, from
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/publications-a-z/2074-the-real-education-
for-healthy-youth-act
 QUEERING SEX ED
16

Sadker, D. (2012). Gender Bias and Curriculum. Encyclopedia Of Diversity In Education, 2,

958-961.
Sex and HIV Education. (2017). Guttmacher Institute. Retrieved 9 December 2017, from
https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/sex-and-hiv-education
Shtarkshall, R., Santelli, J., & Hirsch, J. (2007). Sex Education and Sexual Socialization: Roles
for Educators and Parents. Perspectives On Sexual And Reproductive Health, 39(2), 116-
119. http://dx.doi.org/10.1363/3911607
8 AM