LGBTQ sex education is a sex education program within a school, university, or community center that addresses the sexual health needs of LGBTQ people.
There is some debate about whether LGBTQ sex education should be included in sex education curricula. Advocates of LGBTQ sex education say that the inclusion of LGBTQ issues into sex education programs reduces anti-LGBTQ bullying, improves the health of LGBTQ people, and decreases instances of problems common in LGBTQ students such as depression and low self-esteem.
Opponents argue that LGBTQ sex education programs would force a political point of view on students, misuse tax money, and disrespect religious values.
A 2020 study suggests LGBTQ-inclusive sex education can reduce bullying, improve mental health and reduce suicidality in young LGBTQ people. As of 2014, only 5% of middle and high school students in the United States reported receiving "positive discussions of LGBTQ-related topics" within their health classes.
As of 2025, only 7 states mandate the inclusion of LGBTQ topics in schools, 6 out of the 7 also requiring sex education in their school curriculums.
Background LGBTQ sex education is currently not covered in many schools. Research has posited that students often do not find existing LGBTQ sex education programs to be effective,Gegenfurtner, and Gebhardt. "Sexuality Education Including Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Issues in Schools." Educational Research Review, vol. 22, 2017, pp. 215–222. although research suggests that states with LGBTQ-inclusive sex education have reduced rates of bullying, better mental health, and reduced risk of suicide in young people. Teachers and parents have differing views on homosexuality, which can directly impact when and how LGBTQ sex education is implemented.
Research
Multiple studies have concluded that LGBTQ sex education is often not incorporated into school sex education courses and that most students do not receive effective instruction in LGBTQ sexual health issues.
A study involving the review of literature found that although sex education aims to produce well-rounded students with values of safe sex, nondiscriminatory knowledge, and healthy attitudes towards sex, the reality is different. Modern sex education often pushes heterosexual narratives and prevention strategies that lead to young people being less prepared for their future. Inadequate information can be harmful to their futures, as understood by the World Health Organization (WHO). Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE), or sex education that covers all areas of sexuality and gender, can be detrimental to the future of students' health. CSE was also found to be effective in building healthy relationships, preventing partner and child violence, advanced knowledge in emotional and social situations, and delayed sexual activity.
Outside of sexual knowledge and relationships, social mindfulness can also be a benefit coming from proper sex education. According to the WHO, the likelihood of sexual activity taking place sooner, because of sex education, is false. Proper sex education provides lifelong impacts that help students to be prepared for sex, rather than inducing it.
Students can learn about sex not only at school, but also at home, through relationships, and in other informal settings. Students often are not educated on LGBTQ sex education until college. Appropriate education can help students navigate these environments, which Jessamyn Bowling found by providing LGBTQ sex education classes to incoming freshman in North Carolina.
In a study conducted by Ellis and High in the UK (2004), 384 students were surveyed; they found that 24% had not received instruction in LGBTQ sex issues. The CDC Division of Adolescent and School Health's study revealed that 48% of schools in the US covered LGBTQ topics. According to research reported by Burston and Hart in 2001, 45% of surveyed students believed that they did not cover LGBT sex education sufficiently in school. Research has also shown that there can be an implicit assumption that all students are heterosexual in sex education classes.
The LGBTQ students in Eleanor Formby's 2011 study of sex education said that they do not always feel welcomed by sex education classes or at school. Sex education courses commonly idealize marriage (not acknowledging that many countries outlaw same-sex marriage), thereby presenting a heterosexual view of sex and relationships as normal. Studies have suggested that sex education programs often do not cover safer sex practices for LGBT individuals.
Some sex education curricula cover LGBTQ issues. For example, the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations provides a sex education program called Our Whole Lives, which includes discussion of sexual orientation and presents homosexuality and heterosexuality as equally valid. Our Whole Lives offers programs designed for a range of developmental stages, from Kindergarten-level through adulthood, and follows the "Guidelines for Comprehensive Sexuality Education" that the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) endorses. The United Church of Christ also supports Our Whole Lives.
Issues with sex education programs
Research has illustrated that some sex education courses present LGBTQ issues in a negative light—portraying LGBTQ individuals and LGBTQ sexuality as something wrong, sick, and abnormal. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, "abstinence-only" approaches to sex education can also be alienating to LGBT students because these programs assume that marriage is a possibility and a desire for all students even where same-sex marriage is illegal. Further, promoting marriage as the goal for LGBTQ students reproduces a homonormative standard, marginalizing those without access to or interest in marriage. Ellis and High's survey research in 2004 (including 384 students) revealed that 59% of young people who did receive LGBT sex education found it to be ineffective.
Teachers
Teachers have been identified as a hindrance to LGBTQ sex education in some studies. Teachers always have their own opinions about homosexuality, and, according to these studies, if teachers have negative views toward LGBTQ individuals, this can come through in their teaching—causing LGBTQ students to feel unaccepted and unsafe. A 2024 survey found that schools often contain harmful language and environments for LGBTQ students, often produced by teachers. According to Ellis and High (2004), when LGBT students receive information about LGBTQ sexuality with negative undertones, they are left feeling significantly worse and more unsafe than if homosexuality were left out of the curriculum. Researchers have documented multiple self-proclaimed "LGBTQ-friendly" teachers whose classrooms actually foster prejudiced lessons. Such teachers are also highly likely to ignore instances of homophobic bullying directed at LGBTQ youth within their classes. Burston and Hart (2001) reported that teachers sometimes believe that they should not take a side on the issue of homosexuality and therefore should not interfere when homophobia occurs in the classroom. According to Formby (2011), even phrasing that subtly casts homosexuality in a negative light can have a detrimental effect on LGBTQ students' experience of sex education.
There have also been issues around teachers feeling free to teach sex education that equally emphasizes both heterosexual and homosexual health information. Deana Morrow's study (1993) reported that some teachers said they were afraid they might be fired if they discussed LGBTQ issues. This fear is linked to the historical misconnection of homosexuality to molestation in the United States; this supposedly natural linkage has been debunked multiple times. Regardless, straight and LGBT teachers alike still experience allegations of molestation when they engage in discussions surrounding sexuality, particularly those discussions that are LGBT related. Teachers can also feel hindered because the school environment is inhospitable to homosexuality; in Burston and Hart's 2001 study, some even said that they were under the impression that the school would not allow them to teach LGBTQ sex education.
Classmates can also be non-receptive toward LGBTQ issues in current sex education courses, and students are often hesitant to talk about homosexuality, according to Buston and Hart (2001).
Parents As of 2021, although 85% of parental support in United States high schools are in favor of sexual orientation existing in sex education classes, there are still major discourses on what kind of sex education courses should and should not be relayed to students.
Abstinence-only sex education most commonly includes information on waiting to participate in sex until marriage, instilling moral values with sex- often associated with religion- and pushing anti-contraception narratives to tackle STI and premarital sex rates. However, research suggests that abstinence-only instruction has no affect on adolescent birth rates. This method of instruction is researched to push heteronormativity onto LGBTQ students, leading to isolation and inequitable information about sex.
Prevention-based sex education programs often focus on teen pregnancy and STIs. 26 states across the United States mandate medical validity in sex education, 8 of these states with the expansion of LGBTQ education.
LGBTQ sex education has 66% of parental support as of 2025. However, 91.8% of responding students in 2019 do not have access to sex education that touches on areas regarding the LGBTQ community. Researchers argue that the hesitation for legal and parental action is due to a moral panic surrounding LGBTQ in school communities. Although there is adequate support for sexual orientation to be included in the curriculum for sex education, youth are still faced with insufficient information regarding LGBTQ schooling in all subjects.
Since sex education has been present in health education in schools, many parents expect their children to learn about sex there. Studies show that most families do not engage in conversation about sex in the home, and when they do it is often from a heteronormative perspective. The assumptions of being heterosexual can make LGBTQ people feel ashamed or lacking support from their family. Lack of conversation and knowledge received in the home for LGBTQ people can often lead them to receive their information from outside sources that contain false or misleading information. The same study showed that many parents do not have a solid knowledge base on same-sex or LGBT topics, nor do they know of resources to direct their children towards.
Proposed LGBTQ sex education programs Advocates for LGBTQ sex education have suggested adjustments to current sex education practices in schools. One common place for improvement that researchers have identified is the angle from which sex education is approached in general. Buston and Hart (2001), Ellis and High (2004), and others have recommended that teachers frame sex education in terms of relationships rather than merely reproduction, which can lead to the exclusion of LGBT students. Ellis and High mention that sexual orientation might be more appropriately taught as "an aspect of culture and identity" (Ellis and High 2004, pg. 11). Other researchers such as Morrow (1993) believe that in order for sex education to be effective, it must present LGB as just as natural and legitimate as heterosexuality. Advocates for LGBTQ sex education ask that LGBTQ sexual health issues be given equal weight in the curriculum accordingly. They also say that more resources concerning LGBTQ sexual health issues need to be made available to students. According to UCLA's Center for the Study of Women's Policy Brief 11 (2012), LGBTQ students may not be willing to reach out for guidance themselves.