Diversity in sex and relationship education – limitations and possibilities in Swedish biology textbooks

Abstract

Shortcomings in sex and relationship education (SRE) related to norms and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, asexuality (LGBTQIA) perspectives have been reported internationally and in Sweden. This paper reports on findings from a critical study of SRE content in Swedish biology textbooks for 13-to 16year-old pupils, with the aim of revealing which sexual orientations and bodies are made visible or invisible in the texts. About 200 quotations were selected and analysed, quantitatively and qualitatively, with a focus on limitations and possibilities. The results show that LGBT content is visible in all SRE chapters. However, sexual orientation is often constructed as fixed. Furthermore, stereotypical gender binaries are reinforced via heteronormative assumptions regarding hormones, genitals and reproduction, focusing on differences instead of similarities, and thus limiting the potential to widen non-binary perceptions of bodies and sexualities. Our quantitative analyses reveal that there are few, if any, queer, intersex, asexual or crip/disability representations. If gaps in young people's knowledge regarding norms, intersex, asexuality, queer and crip sexualities are to be filled in order to promote equality and diversity, it is important to rethink the SRE content of Swedish biology textbooks.

How Do Students Critically Evaluate Outdated Language That Relates to Gender in Biology?

“…This confirms findings from others who found cisheteronormative assumptions dominate textbooks across fields and subjects within biology ( Snyder and Broadway, 2004 ; Bazzul and Sykes, 2011; Fuselier et al. , 2018 ; Junkala et al. , 2022 ; King et al.…”

“…, 2021 ; Parise, 2021 ; Donovan et al. , 2024 ), and specifically reveals a pattern of dismissal or erasure of transgender identities in the biology curriculum through the equating of gender to binary, biological sex ( Junkala et al. , 2022 ; King et al.…”

“…An early study of high school biology textbooks either excluded nonheterosexual behavior entirely (in five out of eight cases), or only mentioned it in terms of the disease AIDS ( Snyder and Broadway, 2004 ); this study did not specifically mention transgender individuals in its findings, but it did include them in the methods. A study of Swedish high school biology texts found promotion of harmful stereotypes and outdated language regarding transgender individuals ( Junkala et al. , 2022 ), and a recent review of high school biology textbooks found no differentiation between sex and gender in their discussion of humans ( Donovan et al.…”

‘Shameful histories’ – shame and sex perceived by secondary school students in history education

“…Norms and values are intertwined with scientific facts about reproduction, and this is one of the challenges for RSE, according to Planting-Bergloo et al (2023). In line with Junkala et al (2021), there are other challenges for RSE, such as stereotypical gender binaries and heteronormative traditions in biology textbooks, which can limit perceptions of bodies and sexualities (for example, Abbott et al, 2015;Hobaica et al, 2019;Mocnik, 2021). From this perspective, LGBTQ+ students risk being excluded in RSE if heteronormative language is used (Hobaica et al, 2019), andHarris et al's (2022) study shows that positioning LGBTQ+ issues in RSE risks making these issues marginal and controversial.…”

A retrospective outlook: approaching gender and sexual diversity in education with drama and theatre

“…[STIs]/HIV), gender inequality, and human rights violations" (Haberland & Rogow, 2015, p. S16) and make clear that the objectives of GSD education are to essentially incorporate these issues. From the literature, although there is concern for the deficiency of GSD education (Junkala et al, 2021;Russell 2019), approaches of talking about GSD in the classroom are under discussion.…”