Writer Biography

Addison Concidine is from Idaho and moved to Utah last year to continue her education at USU. She is a sophomore studying Biology with an emphasis in Human Biology and works in a lab on campus as a research technician. Addison enjoys rock climbing, running, reading, art, and exploring the great outdoors in her free time.

This essay was first published in the 2022 edition of Voices and uses MLA documentation.

THINK BACK TO YOUR HIGH SCHOOL sex education class. What topics did you learn about? Was it all about abstinence and STDs? Did you even learn about sex education? These are questions that many students ask themselves when reflecting on their experiences with the U.S.’s current sex education system. Most students do not receive the information that will give them the ability to form healthy relationships, and minority groups like the LGBTQIA+ community are frequently excluded from the curriculum. Only 13 states in the U.S. require that schools teach about sexual orientation, and some do not mandate teaching sex education at all (Estes 617). The lack of information available to all students is appalling, but minority groups like the LGBTQIA+ community are affected on a higher level. In the U.S., one in ten students identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, or queer (Garg and Voleman1). This important statistic depicts the commonality of LGBTQIA+ identities, but instead of these individuals getting information that will help them navigate intimate relationships, LGBTQIA+ students are excluded from the conversation, demonized, and shamed. According to research done by Sharon and Richard Hoefer, researchers at the University of Texas at Arlington, as of May 2017, only 12 states require sex education curricula to talk about sexual orientation and three states emphasize that conversations about non-heterosexual relationships should be negative (Hoefer and Hoefer 260). These disparities have adverse impacts on students, and adjusting the curriculum is necessary to provide everyone with the resources they need. Sex education should be modernized to fit the needs of LGBTQIA+ students because members of this community are not being included in conversations about sexual health.

To understand how to include LGBTQIA+ individuals in sex education, an explanation of how the current sex education curriculum fails students is necessary. As of 2017, less than half of the states in the U.S. require schools to teach about contraceptives (Bodnar and Tornello 9). In most states, abstinence is stressed, which is linked to higher rates of STDs, STIs, and teen pregnancy. Abstinence-based sex education does not reduce sexual activity, and it has been demonstrated by the CDC that 86.4% of women and 90.6% of men in the U.S. engage in premarital sex (Hoefer and Hoefer 258). This highlights that many individuals are not receiving a sex education that will benefit them and are entering relationships with limited knowledge about healthy sex practices. In contrast, Bodnar’s research demonstrates that comprehensive sex education, which aims to give students the information and tools to make healthy relationship choices, reduces sexual activity and increases the use of contraceptives in young adults (Bodnar and Tornello 9).

LGBTQIA+ individuals are at more of a disadvantage, as they are less likely than their heteronormative peers to receive comprehensive sex education (Gowen and Winges-Yanez 788). According to one study, 17.9% of 7,000 interviewed LGBTQIA+ individuals said their school included information that pertained to them, which demonstrates how exclusive the current system is (Gowen and Winges-Yanez 788). Students that do get information receive advice that pertains only to heteronormative relationships and queer relationships are often excluded and ignored. This exclusion creates a space where LGBTQIA+ students are isolated from the subject matter and do not feel comfortable asking questions or voicing concerns. Because they do not receive pertinent information and do not feel confident asking for help, LGBTQIA+ individuals may take part in adverse sexual behaviors, such as engaging in unsafe sex or violating boundaries. In a study by Namrata Garg and Anna Voleman, researchers at the University of Chicago, they found that LGBTQIA+ youth take part in adverse behaviors at a higher rate than their heteronormative peers, signaling that the lack of information and support available to them is causing negative effects (Garg and Voleman).

Along with taking part in adverse behavior, LGBTQIA+ youth are pathologized and ignored at higher rates than their heteronormative peers. The exclusion of LGBTQIA+ youth is carried out in a few ways. LGBTQIA+ individuals are shut out of the conversation through passive silencing, which is “…when LGBTQ discourse was completely absent from sexuality education curricula” (Gowen and Winges-Yanez 791). Students are not given any information that pertains to them and being excluded makes youth feel uncomfortable and alien. This alienation has detrimental effects on their health and makes students feel uninformed and isolated. Another tactic used in schools is active silencing, which is where “…LGBTQ youth were silenced by another” (Gowen and Winges-Yanez 791). When individuals try to ask questions or raise concerns, they are ignored or brushed off, and this dismissal can make students feel unwelcome and undervalued. In some classrooms, students were informed that questions were not allowed, and information on LGBTQIA+ issues was not available. Seven states have “No Promo Homo” laws, which prevent teachers from talking positively about LGBTQIA+ relationships (Bodnar and Tornello 22). These laws work directly to exclude and isolate students, resulting in a multitude of negative repercussions.

Many schools focus on a heterocentric curriculum that only pertains to students that engage in male-female relationships. The current sex education system incorrectly assumes that all students are heteronormative and any information about sex and gender that is given is almost exclusively heterocentric. While the information is useful to some, people who engage in non-heterosexual relationships are given guidance that is not pertinent to them and are often not given the chance to ask questions. In interviews, many LGBTQIA+ students stated they felt embarrassed or nervous to ask questions and did not even know what they should be asking about. Eight states have implemented policies that specifically stigmatize homosexuality, giving students the idea that homosexuality is morally incorrect, unhealthy, and criminal (Hall et al. 509). Along with that, five states emphasize that sex education should be taught to boys and girls separately and base teachings on two explicit genders (Hall et al. 509). In most states, the information provided is gendered and classifies students based on male or female gender roles. Anyone who does not fit into these explicit structures is ignored, such as transgender, asexual, and nonbinary individuals (Hobaica et al. 366). Students that only see the information provided in a binary way may struggle with gender dysphoria and have a harder time understanding their identities than those who fit into male-female identities. Transgender individuals struggle with gender dysphoria at higher rates than other students, and “[s]ome mental health symptoms, particularly depression, anxiety, and disordered eating were reported to be connected to gender dysphoria” (Hobaica et al. 371). Dysphoria can cause confusion and delayed treatment for individuals and can make it so that students are wary of seeking help or treatment.

Not only do LGBTQIA+ students face feelings of confusion and dysphoria, but they also experience higher rates of sexual assault and abuse. According to Namrata Garg, LGBTQIA+ youth are three times more likely than their heteronormative peers to experience sexual violence, four times more likely to be forced to have sex, and half as likely to use a condom during sex (Garg and Voleman). LGBTQIA+ individuals also have higher pregnancy and STD/STI rates than heterocentric couples because of the stigmatization that is applied to these relationships (Hall et al. 507). In schools, between 59% and 84% of LGBTQIA+ individuals experience verbal abuse, and 63% of students feel unsafe at school because of their sexual orientation (Snapp et al. 581). LGBTQIA+ students face bullying and harassment at higher rates than their heteronormative peers, and being in exclusive environments is linked to intimidation by peers. Because of the harassment and bullying, LGBTQIA+ students are more likely than their heterocentric peers to skip school and miss classes because they do not feel safe. They are also more likely to have lower grades, worse mental health, and “…are at a higher risk for dropping out of school compared to their gender-conforming and straight peers” (Snapp et al.). Excluding LGBTQIA+ students from sex education not only impacts their sexual health but influences their mental health, personal safety, and interactions with peers. Increasing the quantity and quality of LGBTQIA+ inclusive curriculum positively impacts students’ mental health and creates healthy environments where people can grow and learn without fear of harassment or exclusion.

Along with promoting inclusion, comprehensive sex education gives LGBTQIA+ students the knowledge they need and allows them the confidence to voice their concerns and questions. Inclusive education can be formed in a variety of ways. Information about the spectrum of genders and identities provides students with the resources to self-identify, which prevents harmful behaviors. This pertains to trans, asexual, nonbinary, genderfluid, and other individuals that are usually ignored by sex education curriculum. Including more information about questioning identities and transitioning from one gender to another can provide helpful information to students and can reduce body dysphoria and harmful practices (Hobaica et al. 378). One other aspect of sex education that should be addressed is anatomy. Many students felt that this is a topic that is overlooked by sex education teachers, and more inclusive information helps students not to feel “embarrassed about their body” (Gowen and Winges-Yanez 796). This is especially important for transitioning individuals, as having access to accurate biological information gives students the confidence to make the best decisions for themselves based on their identities.

LGBTQIA+ individuals also benefit from information about contraceptive use. As mentioned before, most sex education curriculum focuses on heterocentric relationships and contraceptive use, if anything is discussed at all. Schools focus on abstinence to prevent pregnancies without giving rational advice to students, and this leaves many students without the resources they need. According to research done by Kris Gowen, “Placing sexual health discussions in the context of STI prevention … would make sexuality education more relevant to a wider group of youth” (Gowen and Winges-Yanez 796). Encouraging conversations about contraceptive use and STD/STI prevention gives students the guidance to make appropriate sexual decisions. Along with contraceptives, students also need information on consent and healthy relationships. When schools include information about consent, boundaries, communication, and other healthy relationship practices, students have higher chances of having successful relationships. Trans individuals significantly benefit from consent curriculum, as they face nonconsensual sex at higher rates than their cisnormative peers (Hobaica et al. 377). These alterations to the current curriculum would give LGBTQIA+ students the resources they deserve access to and would benefit heteronormative students as well.

Altering the current curriculum creates a safer environment for all, and students are given the resources they need to have healthy romantic relationships. Including information about consent, the emotions that come with relationships, and mental health benefits students across the board (Hobaica et al. 376). Providing this information gives students the tools to explore conversations about boundaries and pleasure in relationships, topics that can help encourage healthy behavior.

It is also essential that heteronormative students learn about LGBTQIA+ issues, as it will increase acceptance and perceived safety in schools. Exposing heterosexual students to different identities and aspects of sex and gender makes them more accepting of LGBTQIA+ students and reduces levels of bullying and harassment (Hall et al. 516). Fostering this environment makes schools a safer place for all, and LGBTQIA+ individuals can be comfortable and engaged in their studies. This can benefit students’ mental health, grades, and relationships with their peers.

On the other hand, some believe that teaching comprehensive, LGBTQIA+-inclusive sex education is a waste of time. They argue that talking about sex with students will lead to rises in STDs, teen pregnancies, and deviant behavior and see any communication about sexual health in a negative light. According to research by Thomas Lickona, a director of Respect and Responsibility at the State University of New York, 63% of sexually active individuals who contracted STDs are under the age of 25 (Lickona 84). This statistic is a warning to parents and educators that sex education is failing young adults, but instead of improving communication, some want to promote “chastity education.” This is a curriculum similar to abstinence education that promotes the idea that students should not take part in any sexual activity before marriage. They argue that contraceptives do not work, talking about sexual orientation leads to adverse behavior, and conversation should be limited to preventing sexual contact (Lickona 88). Proponents of abstinence-based sex education argue that contraceptives, such as condoms, are not fool-proof for preventing pregnancy and emphasize that sex is “…inappropriate or immoral and that abstinence is the only method which is 100% effective in preventing pregnancy and STIs” (Collins et al. 12). Some worry that talking about sexual health and contraceptive use will encourage sexual behavior in youth. Contenders of comprehensive sex education may also argue that teaching students about sexual-self control by promoting “chastity education” will benefit students by increasing “…respect and responsibility to the sexual domain” (Lickona 85).

These points are commonly argued, but it is clear that young adults take part in sexual activities whether or not they are advised against it. As previously demonstrated by the CDC, 86.4% of women and 90.6% of men in the U.S. engage in premarital sex (Hoefer and Hoefer 258). In a study done on a group of students enrolled in a Postponing Sexual Involvement curriculum, it was found that the study had no impact on the “initiation of sex, the frequency of sex, or the number of sexual partners” (Collins et al. 9). Many young adults will be sexually active before marriage and providing them with the resources and information that will lead to healthy relationships and boundaries is crucial. It is better to give students the tools to build healthy habits than to expect they will not be sexually active at all and neglect their needs. Multiple studies show that giving teens information about contraceptives “…does not encourage early sexual activity” (Collins et al. 14). This shows that giving teens information about contraceptives can benefit them greatly by providing them with helpful information and that there is not an automatic correlation between teaching about contraceptives and earlier sexual behavior. Providing young adults with the resources that they need and including all types of sexual orientations in the curriculum makes all students feel connected and prepared for relationships. Students learn about consent, boundaries, contraceptives, communication, and access to this information prevents STDs, STIs, and teen pregnancies. The idea that conversations about sex directly leads to sexually deviant behavior is outdated and biased, and enforcing these ideas is only leading to more problems.

Everyone needs to be included in the conversation about sexual health if progress is going to be made in improving sex education. Including LGBTQIA+ students in the curriculum is crucial, as they are commonly excluded and feel alienated from the subject matter. LGBTQIA+ students struggle with bullying, harassment, and have worse perceptions of safety in schools when they are cut out of sex education. They may miss more school, endure negative sexual relationships, and face higher rates of sexual abuse than their peers. These negative outcomes can be avoided. When included in the curriculum, LGBTQIA+ students feel more confident, listened to, and comfortable with their peers and partners. They are more likely to be accepted by others, engage in healthy behaviors, and having access to information about gender, sexual orientation, and contraceptives encourages confidence in students. Not only do these topics benefit LGBTQIA+ students, but they can also benefit heteronormative students and increase acceptance and healthy relationships for all. Having access to relevant sex education should be a right, not a privilege, and excluding LGBTQIA+ students from the curriculum is causing more harm than good.

Works Cited

Bodnar, Kaitlin and Samantha L. Tornello. “Does Sex Education Help Everyone?: Sex Education Exposure and Timing as Predictors of Sexual Health Among Lesbian, Bisexual, and Heterosexual Young Women.” Journal of Educational & Psychological Consultation, vol. 29, no. 1, Jan-Mar. 2019, pp. 8-26. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1080/10474412.2018.1482219. Accessed 25 Oct. 2021.

Brown, Catherine and Abby Quirk. “Momentum Is Building to Modernize Sex Education.” Center for American Progress, 29 May 2019, https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED602827. Accessed 30 Oct. 2021.

Collins, Chris, et al. “Abstinence Only Vs. Comprehensive Sex Education: What are the Arguments? What is the Evidence?” Progressive Health Partners, March 2002, file:///C:/Users/aconc/AppData/Local/Temp/71342473.pdf, Accessed 2 Dec. 2021.

Estes, Michelle. “‘If There’s One Benefit, You’re not Going to Get Pregnant:’ the Sexual Miseducation of Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Individuals.” Sex Roles, vol. 77, no. 9-10, Nov. 2017, pp.615-627. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1007/s11199-017-0749-8. Accessed 25 Oct. 2021.

Ewing, Lonni. “Impact of Sex Education on LGBTQ+ Individuals.” Diss. Department of Sociology, University of Colorado, Boulder, 2021. Accessed 25 Oct. 2021.

Garg, Namrata and Anna Voleman. “A National Analysis of State Policies on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Questioning/Queer Inclusive Sex Education.” Journal of School Health, vol. 91, no. 2, Feb. 2021, pp. 164-175. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1111/josh.12987. Accessed 25 Oct. 2021.

Gowen, L. Kris and Winges-Yanez, Nichole. “‘Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and Questioning Youths’ Perspectives of Inclusive School-Based Sexuality Education.” Journal of Sex Research, vol. 51, no. 7, Oct. 2014, pp. 788-800. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1080/00224499.2013.806648. Accessed 25 Oct. 2021.

Hall, William J., et al. “State Policy on School-Based Sex Education: A Content Analysis Focused on Sexual Behaviors, Relationships, and Identities.” American Journal of Health Behavior, vol. 43, no. 3, May-Jun. 2019, pp. 506-519. EBSCOhost, doi:10.5993/AJHB.43.3.6. Accessed 25 Oct. 2021.

Hobaica, Steven, et al. “‘Here’s Your Anatomy…Good Luck:’ Transgender Individuals in Cisnormative Sex Education.” American Journal of Sexuality Education, vol. 14, no. 3, Jul-Sept. 2019, pp. 358-387. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1080/15546128.2019.1585308. Accessed 25 Oct. 2021.

Hoefer, Sharon E., and Richard Hoefer. “Worth the Wait? The Consequences of Abstinence-Only Sex Education for Marginalized Students.” American Journal of Sexuality Education, vol. 12, no. 3, Jul-Sept. 2017, pp. 257-267. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1080/15546128.2017.1359802. Accessed 25 Oct. 2021.

Jarpe-Ratner, Elizabeth. “How Can we Make LGBTQ+-Inclusive Sex Education Programmes Truly Inclusive? A Case Study of Chicago Public Schools’ Policy and Curriculum.” Sex Education, vol. 20, no. 3, May 2020, pp. 283-299. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1080/14681811.2019.1650335. Accessed 25 Oct. 2021.

Lickona, Thomas. “Where Sex Education Went Wrong.” Educational Leadership, 30 Nov 1992, https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ472615. Accessed 25 Oct. 2021.

Snapp, Shannon D., et al. “LGBTQ-Inclusive Curricula: Why Supportive Curricula Matter.” Sex Education, vol. 15, no. 6, Nov. 2015, pp. 580-596. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1080/14681811.2015.1042573. Accessed 25 Oct. 2021.