US sexual health curriculum could force LGBTQ+ students to seek education outside of school, survey suggests

Children across the United States who identify as LGBTQ+ say the sex education curricula they receive lack important information to make informed decisions about their sexual health — which could force them to seek potentially dangerous advice elsewhere.

Results from a new nationwide survey show that these young people – ages 13 to 17 – believe that crucial issues surrounding sexual orientation and gender identity are left out of sexual health education programs.

Experts who led the study – published in The Journal of Sexual Researchas people around the world celebrate Pride month – say including key elements in curricula could be “life-saving.”

“Excluding LGBTQ+ students from the curriculum may contribute to poor health outcomes among LGBTQ+ youth, with some research beginning to document these experiences and make recommendations for curriculum changes,” explains lead author Steven Hobaica, a clinical psychologist and research scientist at the Trevor Project, whose mission is to end suicide among LGBTQ+ youth.

“This negligence needs to be addressed urgently and it could save lives.”

“Given the current political climate where laws attempt to exclude LGBTQ+ information from school curriculums, we encourage policymakers to continue to fight for LGBTQ+ inclusion in curricula to prevent health problems for a vulnerable group.”

Of more than 800 survey respondents, most reported that there was not enough LGBTQ+ content in their sex education. To learn about sexual health, most used extracurricular sources, including online spaces, friends, and personal experiences with sexual exploration. The authors found that these extracurricular sources are often preferred by LGBTQ+ youth, but they can lack accuracy and reliability.

Overall, participants described feeling excluded by curricula that were based solely on abstinence-only approaches or religious principles, or that contained repressive and oppressive elements – such as negative comments about LGBTQ+ people or the omission of required LGBTQ+ content altogether.

“LGBTQ+ youth expressed a strong desire to learn more about topics related to their sexual orientation and gender identity, indicating a critical gap in existing curricula,” says co-author Dr. Erica Szkody, a postdoctoral fellow in the Lab for Scalable Mental Health at Northwestern University.

“Despite the known benefits of comprehensive sex education, the majority of sex education curricula in the United States are not comprehensive and exclude LGBTQ+ students.

“Our analyses underscore the extent of this exclusion.”

The survey also offered young LGBTQ+ people the opportunity to speak openly about their experiences and suggestions for change in the area of ​​sex education:

These suggestions included:

• More LGBTQ+ content in sex education curricula, as well as more detail on healthy and diverse relationships (e.g. non-monogamy, polyamory), consent, relationship safety, and communication skills.
• Creating safe and supportive spaces while addressing legitimate fears about a potential increase in bullying, as they had experienced students making fun of the material or using discriminatory language in previous implementations.
• Updating sex education materials to reflect LGBTQ+ life experiences, history, and risk factors.
• Creating sexual health interventions with a focus on LGBTQ+ experiences and concerns.
• Improving access to reliable sexual health information.
• Providing more accessible sexual health information through other channels, such as online and mobile applications.

Participants in the LGBTQ+ study summarized their experiences with sexual health curricula in the United States and left heartfelt responses:

“I wish I had learned about gay sex, sexual orientation and all the other controversial topics that are considered ‘grooming.’ If children don’t receive good sex education, they will learn how to do it in unhealthy ways from other sources like the internet or word of mouth. If we educate children about these topics, they will be safer when they become teenagers,” said one.

Another added: “I wish others would understand that while anatomical knowledge is important, we need sex education that is relevant to today’s world. This includes sex education (about) online dangers and safety, (same-sex) relationships, and education that is focused on attraction and feelings rather than just a lesson (about) heterosexual reproduction. I wish they would take into account our real-life experiences and insecurities.”

Another exclaimed, “It is NOT HARMFUL to talk to high school students about gender identity and sexuality. It SAVES LIVES.”

The authors hope their findings will contribute to a “critical” policy shift aimed at including young people from the LGBTQ community in sex education, a community that is “often underserved.”

“By incorporating the voices of young LGBTQ+ people into curriculum design, we can not only equip young people with the knowledge they need to develop healthy relationships and health-promoting behaviors, but also contribute to a more tolerant and just society in the years to come,” explains Hobaica.

Although this study included quantitative and qualitative analyses with a large national sample of LGBTQ+ youth, it had limitations. “Due to the limited sample size, we were unable to draw conclusions regarding recommendations for students with specific identities,” explain the authors, who note that future work could collect similar data from even larger samples to achieve further generalizability and comparability.