In this section, heteronormativity is discussed as it pertains to the nuance in the curriculum identified by the young people. Heteronormativity was a word that I did not introduce into the sessions, but rather, the young people often used the word to describe their sex education. Becky succinctly mentioned that, ‘they didn't mention, uh, you know any sort of
non-heteronormative sexual health issues at all’. Emma, on the other hand, recalled her sex
education and the ‘coverage’ of gay relationships and was explicit in her conveyance of the issue::
Year 6, I think we got the basic ins and outs of a straight relationship and year 7 basic straight relationship stuff, but nothing about gay relationships at all, ever, even in high school all through my education, um, from year 5 we always had PHSE whatever the classes are called, um, but never any gay or lesbian relationships. I think it would have been also, um, quite helpful to know about transgender, um, although it doesn't really go in with, well it does kind of, into sexual education, but everyone seems to have a naivety towards it and I think that's where a lot of discrimination comes from. So if they could do a little bit more on gay and transgender cause we got loads on stuff for straight relationships, I mean all the STIs, straight relationships can have and I guess it kind of covered gay relationships ‘cause it had the whole anal, what you can get from anal, you can get AIDS which turns into HIV.
The significant aspect of this quote is where Emma conveys that they covered gay relationships by discussing anal sex. This is relevant in two ways: First, it suggests that there is something inherently gay about anal sex, which reiterates a point made in the previous chapter. This
suggests that people fixate on anal sex as gay sex and not just a variation of sexual activity. Interestingly, this was pointed out by a gay female who is not likely to participate in the act, yet this portrayal still exemplifies ways in which the action defines the relationship, and in particular, gay relationships. Also, it may suggest that the educator may not be well informed about the commonality of anal sex in heterosexual relationships, which is evidenced by Reinisch, Hill, Sanders and Ziemba-Davis (1995) and the more recent British National Surveys of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (Natsal) (2013) data.
Aside from Emma, the participants were split on their recollection. Some recalled minimal education on same sex couples, while others received none. Of the former, Imogen responded that the teacher spoke directly to her about homosexuality but only because she was persistently questioning about it. The recollection was that the teachers only spoke ‘about
what the man and the woman do to have sex’. Amy was one of the participants in the latter
group that could not recall anything other than a heteronormative programme. She said, ‘I
don't think we touched on sexuality at all’ and her reasoning was that ‘they think they aren't allowed to approach different lifestyles and different types of relationships’. This view was
expanded on by another participant, Andy, who said:
I think teachers are so worried about getting their asses sued and so the school must kind of have that ‘don't go into this subject’ . . . There are still schools of thought in this country certainly that say it's absolutely fine and absolutely abominable and so for a teacher to take a stand and say I'm going to talk about it openly, is putting them in a very dangerous place, just speaking as I've done some work in a secondary school.
Again, his view focuses on the legality of approaching the topics of alternative sexualities in the classroom. This view was shared by several others, but not necessarily in legal terms, who said that they thought past legislation (Section 28) still influences policy and practice today. This idea chimes with Alldred and David’s (2007) finding that ‘teachers are reluctant to take responsibility for . . . issues perceived as risky’ (p. 169) in that teachers are perceived to reluctantly discuss sensitive topics if they may be concerned about repercussions from their superiors. Other opinions shared by participants were related to religion, for those who attended religious schools, and teachers not wanting the burden or hassle of dealing with a contentious topic within these contexts.
One of the participants, Alice, shared her experience of being in a children’s home after she was excluded from mainstream education. While she said that the care home tried to cover sex education, she considered that it was lacking in one respect, the inclusion of LGBT topics:
Um, it was mainly just in one sense what they would call heterosexual. So a man to woman, having sex and then obviously the woman would be getting pregnant or whatever. They'd go through different things and, but it wasn't no, more talking sense of like, well, if you don't use a condom you can get this, that. It was just mainly bordered on sex.
Overall, participants often recalled homosexuality or sexual orientation being broached in passing, but infrequently the information was reportedly useful and consistent with a truly comprehensive, non-heteronormative curriculum. This may be due to the school ethos/policies, the teacher’s personal beliefs or even a lapse in memory of the participant. Nevertheless, considering that this is corroborated by the statistics on the lack of education on sexual orientation and homosexuality presented in the previous chapter, I believe that the first two options are more likely the cause for the situation.