Type to search

We Need To Talk About LGBTQ Students and Sex Ed


We Need To Talk About LGBTQ Students and Sex Ed


LGBT-Inclusive Sex and Relationships Education
LGBT Sex Education

The Real Education for Healthy Youth Act would authorize grants for comprehensive sex-education programs that are inclusive of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender, or LGBT, youngsters. Specifically, it would require extensive sex education to protect sensitive and respectful discussions of gender, gender identification, and sexual orientation, among other topics.

Currently, sex-education standards vary widely across the country, leaving many American youth uninformed about basic anatomy, healthy relationship skills, and safer sex practices. On top of this, LGBT youngsters face particular issues. Sex-education materials often suppose students are heterosexual and nontransgender. Many sex-education curricula do not mention sexual orientation or gender identification at all, and some that do discuss it only in a poor light. This not only prevents LGBT students from learning the information and skills they need to stay healthy, but it also contributes to a climate of exclusion in institutions, where LGBT students already are frequent focuses on of bullying and discrimination.
All youth deserve education that empowers these to make healthy, knowledgeable decisions about their relationships and their bodies, and the true Education for Healthy Youth Act would help make this possible. When considering this costs, Congress should retain in mind the ways that this legislation would positively impact LGBT youngsters.

Extensive sex education benefits all students, including LGBT youth
There is certainly abundant evidence that comprehensive sex education is effective at reducing high-risk sexual behaviors, promoting safer sex practices, and avoiding pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections. Meanwhile, no abstinence-only programs have been proven effective at attaining those results or at significantly delaying intimate activity-their intended purpose.
Sex education is only legally mandated in 22 says plus the District of Columbia. Of the, only 12 mandate teaching about contraception, in support of 7 require that the information be clinically accurate. With such spotty coverage and abnormal standards, comprehensive sex education does not reach almost enough youth, resulting in dangerous ignorance. Among those age groups 18 to 19, 41 percent say they know little to nothing at all about condoms, and 75 percent say they know little to nothing at all about the contraceptive pill.
Comprehensive sex education is critical to young people’s sexual health, and passing the Real Education for Healthy Youth Act can improve the knowledge and well-being of students in the united states, including LGBT youth.
LGBT youth are disproportionally suffering from negative sexual-health outcomes
Young men who’ve sex with men, who may identify as gay or bisexual, account for more than two-thirds of new HIV infections among people ages 13 to 29. Within this group, men of color are particularly affected. Additionally, men who’ve sex with men account for about two-thirds of new syphilis instances, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that occurrence in this community may be increasing.
Young ladies in high school who identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual will contract an STI and much more likely to be pregnant than those who identify as heterosexual or questioning. Also, they are much more likely to have experienced coerced intimate contact. Young women who have had both man and female companions are at the highest risk of coercion and dating assault.
Among transgender people, HIV prevalence rates are more than four times the nationwide average, and transgender women of color are particularly affected. Transgender and gender non-conforming youth also experience high rates of sexual violence, particularly transgender and gender nonconforming youth of color.
Because LGBT youngsters experience more negative sexual-health final results than their heterosexual peers, they might especially benefit from effective and inclusive sex education.
Sex education often excludes and even promotes prejudice against LGBT youth
Presently, sex-education programs do not reliably discuss sexual orientation and gender identity, and when they do, the info can be inaccurate and deeply negative. Only 12 states require dialogue of sexual orientation in sex education, and, of these, three require the teaching of inaccurate and negative information. In Alabama, for example, sex teachers must teach that “homosexuality is not a lifestyle suitable to the general public” which “homosexual conduct is a criminal offence under the laws of the condition.” The Supreme Court invalidated that condition law a decade ago. There’s also seven says where positive conversation of being gay is prohibited in schools. No expresses currently mandate debate of gender identity in sex education.
A national survey found that only 4 percent of LGBT youth in middle classes and senior high school report having any positive discussion of LGBT people or issues in their health classes. A lady senior in senior high school composed, “Because my school’s health program ignores the gay students, I have been fairly clueless about safe sex. I had to find information on my own on the internet because non-straight students are disregarded.” Too many schools neglect to provide LGBT students with inclusive information, leaving them dangerously underinformed about safer sex and healthy interactions.
Departing out LGBT youth in sex education also implies that these are abnormal or not worth inclusion. Many sex-education curricula assert heterosexuality as typical and leave no room for deviation, with materials made up of statements such as, “What do guys discuss in the locker room? (Ladies) What do ladies discuss at sleepover celebrations? (Men).” This sort of exclusion plays a part in the emotions of isolation and rejection that LGBT youngsters experience all too frequently.
Some curricula go even further and make explicitly negative statements about LGBT people and relationships. One teacher’s manual states, “Any same sex ‘sexual experimentation’ can be complicated to young persons and really should be highly discouraged.” In other programs, teachers are instructed to call being homosexual “unnatural” and to tell students that people with HIV or AIDS are “suffering” for the “choice” they designed to be homosexual. These types of disparaging responses perpetuate misconceptions and carry moral judgment, adding to LGBT students’ alienation.
Abstinence-only-until-marriage curricula are particularly exclusionary to LGBT students, as they train that sex is permissible within a heterosexual relationship. For instance, one curriculum claims, “The only safe sex is within a marriage relationship where a man and a female are faithful to one another for life.” Many programs teach that nontraditional households are inferior, which children of divorced or same-sex parents are even worse off than children of married, heterosexual parents, motivating prejudice against LGBT students and the children of LGBT parents.
Exclusion and condemnation of LGBT people is shamefully common in sex education, leading to dangerous ignorance and contributing to hostile college environments. THE TRUE Education for Healthy Youth Act would fight this by funding sex education that includes LGBT youngsters and discusses issues of sexual orientation and gender identification within an accurate and sensitive way.
Hostile school environments hurt LGBT youth
Sex-education programs that encourage prejudice against LGBT students in institutions contribute to an array of negative results for these young people.
Unsafe school environments prevent LGBT students from reaching their full academic potential. LGBT students who experience regular harassment at college survey lower grade-point averages than those who are not harassed, and nearly one in three LGBT students has skipped course because they feel unsafe.
Stigma and discrimination in school also lead to disproportionately high rates of mental-health issues and drug abuse among LGBT youngsters. Students who experience higher rates of victimization in school predicated on their intimate orientation or gender manifestation have lower self-esteem and higher rates of unhappiness. Lesbian, homosexual, and bisexual youngsters are four times much more likely to attempt suicide than their direct peers, and more than half of transgender and gender non-conforming youth who experience harassment, assault, or discrimination in school attempt suicide. In what’s called the minority stress effect, LGBT youngsters may use tobacco, drugs, and alcohol to handle the stress of stigma and discrimination, leading to disproportionately high rates of substance abuse.
There is increasing proof that positive dialogue of LGBT people and issues helps build safer college environments, decreasing the educational, mental, and physical harms that LGBT students experience. LGBT students whose curricula include, for example, positive conversation of LGBT people, history, and occasions hear fewer homophobic remarks and feel safer in school than students without inclusive curricula.
Implementing LGBT-inclusive making love education under the Real Education for Healthy Youth Respond would improve school environments for LGBT youth, helping them feel safer and reducing the harmful ramifications of stigma and discrimination.
There is broad support for LGBT-inclusive, comprehensive sex education
Most parents, medical organizations, and educational organizations support the teaching of LGBT-inclusive, comprehensive sex education in academic institutions. National surveys reveal that 93 percent of parents of junior students and 91 percent of parents of high school students believe it is important to instruct sex education in universities, which 80 percent of parents of junior students and 73 percent of parents of high school students believe sexual orientation is an appropriate topic for inclusion. Parental support for extensive sex education slashes across politics and spiritual lines.
Additionally, many organizations, including the American Medical Association, the National Education Association, and the U.S. Department of Health insurance and Human being Services, all support LGBT-inclusive, comprehensive sex education.
Policies supporting in depth sex education such as the Real Education for Healthy Youth Take action align with both parents’ choices and expert suggestions concerning the health insurance and well-being of students.

Sexual Identity, Sex of Sexual Contacts, and Health-Related Behaviors Among LGBT Students