Transforming Gender and Sexuality Education: An Autoethnographic Journey of Pedagogical Innovation in South African Higher Education

Abstract

This autoethnographic study examines my transformation as an educator teaching gender and sexuality to future helping professionals in South African higher education. Through systematic analysis of personal journals, teaching reflections, and pedagogical materials collected over 180 contact hours, I explore how innovative approaches can create collaborative learning environments in traditionally sensitive subject areas. Drawing on critical pedagogy, queer theory, and decolonizing methodologies, the research reveals three interconnected pedagogical innovations: structured vulnerability protocols that transcend traditional “safe space” models, progressive exposure pedagogy that challenges heteronormative assumptions by introducing diverse content early, and indigenous knowledge integration that positions students as knowledge co-creators. The findings demonstrate how my professional evolution from knowledge authority to learning facilitator enabled authentic engagement with diverse epistemologies while maintaining academic rigor. Students consistently contributed concepts absent from academic literature—from social media discourse about sexual identity hierarchies to traditional cultural practices—enriching collective understanding. This study addresses significant gaps in South African literature on tertiary-level sexuality education pedagogy, offering concrete strategies for implementing transformative approaches. The research contributes to autoethnographic scholarship by demonstrating how systematic reflection can generate theoretical insights about collaborative knowledge construction while acknowledging the ongoing challenges of teaching sensitive subjects within complex cultural contexts.

1. Transforming Gender and Sexuality Education: An Autoethnographic Journey of Pedagogical Innovation in South African Higher Education

Gender and sexuality remain contested terrains in contemporary South African society, where progressive constitutional protections exist alongside persistent cultural conservatism and political tensions. Despite South Africa’s Constitution prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and promoting gender equality, public discourse continues to reflect deep fractures between legal frameworks and lived realities (Francis 2017). The post-Zuma political era has witnessed intensified debates about LGBTQ+ rights, with narratives positioning gender and sexual diversity as ‘un-African’ or a ‘western import’ persisting even as queer activism gains visibility and momentum (Matebeni 2014). These societal tensions create particularly complex challenges for educators tasked with teaching students on gender and sexuality in higher education who must navigate diverse cultural contexts while upholding human rights principles.

As a South African woman of colour, cisgender heterosexual lecturer teaching in post-apartheid South Africa, I bring certain privileges and limitations to this pedagogical space. My positioning as both an insider to academic institutions and an outsider to many of the lived experiences my students share creates unique opportunities and responsibilities for facilitating learning about gender and sexuality diversity (hooks 1994). This positionality requires continuous interrogation of my assumptions and openness to being educated by students whose experiences challenge dominant academic narratives.

The South African higher education context presents unique challenges for gender and sexuality education. Students arrive from diverse cultural, linguistic, religious, and socioeconomic backgrounds, often carrying heteronormative assumptions reinforced by inadequate secondary school sexuality education (Rossouw 2023). Many have limited exposure to comprehensive frameworks for understanding sexual and gender diversity, while others bring lived experiences that academic literature fails to acknowledge or validate. Rather than viewing this diversity as an obstacle, my pedagogical journey revealed how it could become the foundation for innovative teaching approaches that respect multiple knowledge systems while maintaining academic rigor.

This paper addresses a significant gap in South African literature regarding the lived experiences of educators teaching gender and sexuality in tertiary institutions, particularly within smaller class environments where intimate learning communities can flourish. While much research has focused on curriculum development and theoretical frameworks for sexuality education (Rossouw 2023), less attention has been paid to the actual pedagogical practices and reflective processes of educators at the tertiary level (Nduna et al. 2017). This autoethnographic approach allows for in-depth examination of how pedagogical innovations develop through systematic reflection on teaching practice and personal transformation. This autoethnographic paper addresses three central research questions:

• What innovative pedagogical approaches emerge when teaching gender and sexuality in small class environments?
• How does student-generated indigenous knowledge expand academic epistemologies in gender and sexuality education?
• What are the essential components and potential risks of creating “safe spaces” for learning about sensitive topics?

2. Literature Review

The scholarship on gender and sexuality education reveals significant gaps in pedagogical research, particularly regarding innovative approaches that integrate diverse knowledge systems while preparing helping professionals for practice in complex cultural contexts. This literature review positions the pedagogical innovations described in this autoethnographic reflection within broader academic discourse by examining three interconnected areas: the current state of comprehensive sexuality education in South Africa, evolving conceptualizations of educational spaces, and emerging frameworks for epistemological justice in higher education.

2.1. Comprehensive Sexuality Education in South Africa

The landscape of gender and sexuality education in South Africa reflects broader societal tensions between progressive constitutional protections and persistent cultural conservatism. This tension creates a unique educational environment where, as Francis (2017) documents, educators often lack adequate preparation for addressing diverse sexual and gender identities while simultaneously facing resistance from institutional structures that privilege heteronormative approaches. The constitutional framework prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity exists alongside what Msibi (2013) identifies as deeply entrenched cultural narratives that render LGBTQ+ identities marginal or invisible in educational spaces.

Contemporary scholarship advocates for comprehensive sexuality education that encompasses diverse sexual identities, behaviours, and practices while challenging stereotypes and promoting positive attitudes toward sexual diversity (Le Mat et al. 2019; Rossouw 2023; Shefer et al. 2018). However, implementation faces significant challenges due to sociocultural factors including traditional gender norms, religious beliefs, and lingering legacies of colonialism and apartheid (Leibowitz et al. 2014; Reygan 2019). These challenges are compounded by what Rossouw’s (2023) critical discourse analysis reveals as the dominance of heteronormative, fear-based content in South African sexuality education curricula that fails to adequately address sexual and gender diversity.

Particularly significant for this study is the finding that South African research on comprehensive sexuality education has largely focused on primary and secondary schooling, often neglecting teaching and pedagogical approaches at the tertiary level (Nduna et al. 2017). Existing tertiary-level approaches reveal the dominance of biomedical and risk-focused frameworks that often pathologize diverse sexual practices and identities rather than promoting affirming understanding (Shefer and Ngabaza 2023). These traditional approaches create particular challenges for preparing helping professionals who must move beyond deficit-based frameworks to develop affirming practice skills.

The implications of this educational landscape are profound for students entering tertiary institutions. As Rossouw’s (2023) analysis demonstrates, students arrive at higher education with inadequate foundational knowledge and heteronormative assumptions that must be addressed before advanced learning can take place. This reality necessitates pedagogical innovations that can effectively bridge knowledge gaps while challenging dominant assumptions about sexuality and gender.

2.2. Reconceptualizing Educational Safe Spaces

The concept of ‘safe spaces’ in educational contexts has become increasingly contested, particularly in gender and sexuality education where the tension between protecting vulnerability and challenging dominant assumptions becomes acute. Early advocacy for safe spaces emphasized environments where marginalized students could express themselves without fear (Holley and Steiner 2005), but subsequent scholarship has revealed the complexity and potential limitations of this approach.

Critical scholars have raised important questions about whose safety is prioritized in such spaces. Ali (2017) distinguishes between spaces that inadvertently provide safety for dominant voices to express potentially harmful opinions versus spaces that genuinely prioritize marginalized voices’ safety and dignity. This distinction proves crucial for understanding how educational environments can simultaneously protect vulnerability and challenge oppressive assumptions. Leonardo and Porter (2010) extend this critique by demonstrating how creating “safe spaces” may inadvertently protect privileged students from confronting their complicity in oppressive systems rather than fostering genuine learning and transformation.

Barrett (2010) contributes another dimension to this debate by demonstrating that emphasis on emotional safety in educational contexts may impede learning by preventing students from engaging with challenging content. This research supports pedagogical approaches that balance support with intellectual challenge rather than avoiding difficult topics altogether. The scholarship reveals the need for sophisticated approaches that can navigate tensions between safety and growth. These tensions are central to the pedagogical innovations examined in this autoethnographic study.

Building on these critiques, scholars like Arao and Clemens (2013) argue for moving beyond the traditional safe space model toward ‘brave spaces’ where challenging content is engaged with rather than avoided. Holley and Steiner (2005) further develop this concept by defining effective educational spaces not as environments where challenging content is avoided, but rather as spaces where students can express themselves authentically while being respectfully challenged to expand their perspectives. This conceptualization aligns with the goals of critical pedagogy in sexuality education, which seeks to create transformative rather than merely comfortable learning experiences (Ngabaza and Shefer 2019; Sanjakdar et al. 2015).

This study contributes to these ongoing debates by examining how educational spaces can be constructed through specific protocols and frameworks rather than assumptions about comfort or freedom from challenge. The research suggests that the dichotomy between ‘safe’ and ‘brave’ spaces may be false, proposing instead that effective gender and sexuality education requires sophisticated pedagogical approaches that can hold these tensions productively.

2.3. Knowledge Systems and Epistemological Justice in Higher Education

Recent scholarship on knowledge democracy and epistemological justice provides essential theoretical support for pedagogical approaches that integrate diverse knowledge systems within higher education contexts. Santos (2014) argues that cognitive justice requires recognizing multiple knowledge systems as equally valid rather than privileging Western academic knowledge over indigenous and experiential wisdom. This theoretical framework directly supports the epistemological innovations central to this autoethnographic reflection, particularly the integration of student-generated knowledge into academic discourse.

The work of Andrews and Govender (2022) on queer critical literacies in teacher education demonstrates how challenging dominant knowledge systems can foster critical allyship across difference. Their research provides empirical evidence that pedagogical approaches honouring diverse epistemologies can enhance rather than compromise educational quality, supporting the bidirectional learning processes examined in this study. This finding proves particularly significant for understanding how academic rigor and indigenous knowledge integration can function synergistically rather than in opposition.

Govender’s (2017) examination of teacher identity development in critical literacy courses reveals how educator authenticity and vulnerability can create opportunities for challenging heteronormative assumptions while building authentic pedagogical relationships. This research provides crucial support for understanding how educator positioning and personal transformation enable pedagogical innovation, themes that emerge prominently in this autoethnographic analysis. The connection between educator development and pedagogical effectiveness suggests that effective gender and sexuality education requires ongoing personal as well as professional growth from educators.

Chilisa’s (2012) work on indigenous research methodologies offers additional theoretical guidance for integrating student-generated knowledge into academic discourse without appropriation or tokenism. Chilisa’s emphasis on relationality and collective knowledge construction provides a conceptual framework for understanding how peer learning can enhance rather than compromise educational rigor. This finding proves central to this study’s examination of small class dynamics.

These theoretical frameworks collectively support pedagogical approaches that position students as knowledge co-creators whose experiences contribute to rather than simply receive academic understanding. Such approaches require what Smith (2012) describes as decolonizing methodologies that challenge traditional power dynamics in higher education while maintaining scholarly integrity. The integration of these diverse theoretical perspectives creates a foundation for understanding how innovative pedagogical approaches can transform both individual teaching practice and broader institutional cultures.

This literature review reveals significant gaps in existing scholarship, particularly regarding practical applications of theoretical frameworks in South African higher education contexts. While theoretical support exists for transformative approaches to gender and sexuality education, limited research examines how such approaches function in practice, especially within the unique dynamics of small class environments. This autoethnographic study addresses these gaps by providing detailed examination of pedagogical innovations while connecting personal experiences to broader theoretical and cultural contexts.

3. Theoretical Framework

This autoethnographic study draws on three interconnected theoretical frameworks: critical pedagogy, queer theory and pedagogy, and indigenous knowledge systems. Collectively, these theories inform both the pedagogical innovations examined and the methodological approach employed.

Critical pedagogy serves as the foundational framework, with Freire’s (2018) conceptualization of education as dialogical practice that liberates both teachers and learners from oppressive structures. His rejection of traditional one-way education directly informs the collaborative knowledge construction central to this reflection. Instead of this teacher-centred approach, Freire advocates for educational methods where teachers and students learn together through mutual dialogue and inquiry. hooks’ (1994) engaged pedagogy extends this work by emphasizing the whole person in learning processes and providing theoretical support for boundary-crossing work in gender and sexuality education. Kumashiro’s (2015) anti-oppressive education framework offers specific guidance for understanding how education can challenge systems of privilege through four complementary approaches that operate simultaneously in effective gender and sexuality education.

Queer theory and pedagogy provide essential grounding through Butler’s (1990) concept of performativity, which understands gender and sexuality as socially constructed through repeated performances rather than expressing essential truths. Britzman’s (2005) framework of queering pedagogy translates these insights into educational practice, emphasizing disruption of heteronormative assumptions and creation of genuinely inclusive learning environments. Govender’s (2017) and Andrews and Nichols’ (2021) scholarship contextualizes these frameworks within post-apartheid South African educational environments.

Indigenous knowledge systems and epistemological justice draw from Santos’ (2014) concept of cognitive justice that recognizes multiple knowledge systems as equally valid rather than hierarchically organized. Chilisa’s (2012) work on indigenous research methodologies offers guidance for integrating student-generated knowledge without appropriation, while Smith’s (2012) decolonizing methodologies framework provides tools for understanding how educational practices can challenge colonial knowledge structures.

These three frameworks converge to create transformative epistemological pedagogy. This is an approach that simultaneously challenges oppressive structures (critical pedagogy), disrupts normative assumptions about gender and sexuality (queer theory), and honours diverse ways of knowing (indigenous knowledge systems). This integrated framework provides theoretical foundation for understanding how innovative pedagogical approaches can create learning environments where students become knowledge co-creators whose experiences challenge and extend academic discourse. This theoretical positioning transforms traditional teacher–student hierarchies into collaborative learning communities where all participants contribute to expanding understanding of gender and sexuality.

4. Methodology

This research employs autoethnography as its methodological framework, specifically following Chang’s (2008) systematic approach that integrates personal experience with cultural analysis and theoretical engagement. Autoethnography is particularly suited for examining teaching practices in sensitive areas as it enables in-depth exploration of educator positionality, challenges, and transformative processes while maintaining analytical rigor (Adams et al. 2015; Ellis et al. 2011). The data corpus includes three years of personal journals and teaching reflections, session plans, classroom materials, and notes on student interactions. Informal feedback from students, collected during regular check-ins and end-of-term discussions, also informed this analysis. No direct student quotes are included, which is consistent with the reflective methodology that centres on the author’s interpretations (Clandinin and Connelly 2000).

The analytical process followed Chang’s (2008) four-phase framework, adapted for the sensitive nature of gender and sexuality education. This systematic approach ensured rigorous treatment of data while maintaining the reflexive quality essential to autoethnographic inquiry. Phase 1 involved pedagogical mirror moments. This consisted of structured reflections within 24 h of each session capturing experiences, emotions, and pedagogical decisions. Phase 2 required cultural analysis positioning experiences within broader South African contexts. Phase 3 employed iterative thematic analysis using both inductive and deductive coding across the three-year dataset. Phase 4 involved critical engagement with literature, revealing gaps where experiences extended current understanding of transformative learning and emotional labour management in sensitive subject teaching. Throughout all phases, analytical honesty (Ellis and Bochner 2016) was maintained, acknowledging interpretive uncertainty and how researcher–educator positioning potentially influenced findings while ensuring scholarly rigor through systematic procedures.

The coding process involved identifying recurring patterns across my journal entries. For example, entries containing phrases like ‘student withdrew from discussion,’ ‘uncomfortable silence,’ or ‘asked to speak privately after class’ were coded as ‘vulnerability indicators.’ Repeated references to ‘students correcting my assumptions,’ ‘learned something new today,’ or ‘challenged my understanding’ were coded as ‘knowledge co-creation moments.’ Through iterative analysis, these codes clustered into the three main themes: structured vulnerability protocols emerged from vulnerability indicators, progressive exposure pedagogy from codes related to ‘content sequencing challenges,’ and peer learning from ‘horizontal knowledge exchange’ codes.

Module Context and Student Population

The gender and sexuality module examined in this paper is situated within psychology- and social work-focused degree programs at a South African private institution for second- and third-year undergraduate students. The class sizes range between 15 and 25 students. The module serves students who will graduate as social workers, registered counsellors and psychologists.

Over three years of teaching this module, the module has been delivered across nine terms. Each term consists of 10 weeks of two-hour sessions. This totals 180 contact hours of teaching experience, providing substantial opportunity for pedagogical experimentation, refinement, and evaluation. The extended contact time allows for in-depth exploration of complex topics and development of trust necessary for vulnerable sharing and collective learning processes.

The module curriculum addresses ten core areas progressing from foundational concepts through practical applications to contemporary challenges: gender theory and social constructs, intersectionality and sexual behaviours, counselling strategies and assessment techniques, the South African landscape of sexual and gender diversity, family structures and coming-out processes, comprehensive sexuality education, gender-based violence and interventions, HIV in South African contexts, prevention and treatment approaches, and sexual and reproductive health rights.

Students represent contemporary South African diversity, bringing varied cultural, linguistic, religious, and socioeconomic backgrounds from urban and rural communities. This diversity includes representation across racial groups, different family structures, and varying levels of prior knowledge about sexual and gender diversity. Some students identify within the LGBTQ+ spectrum, contributing lived experience that complements academic knowledge. Rather than viewing this diversity as a challenge, my pedagogical approach recognizes it as an educational resource that creates learning opportunities impossible in homogeneous settings.

5. Findings and Discussion

This autoethnographic analysis, conducted through Chang’s (2008) four-phase framework, reveals three interconnected themes that emerged from systematic examination of three years of journal entries across nine terms of teaching gender and sexuality in higher education. These findings demonstrate how innovative pedagogical approaches can transform learning environments while highlighting both opportunities and challenges inherent in responsive pedagogy within South African higher education contexts.

5.1. Establishing Safe, Supportive, and Brave Learning Spaces

Through my years of teaching gender and sexuality, I have come to understand that the foundation of effective education in this domain lies in establishing learning environments that transcend traditional notions of ‘safe spaces.’ My approach required moving beyond simplistic ideas of comfort or conflict avoidance to create ‘structured vulnerability protocols.’ These are frameworks that enable authentic engagement with challenging content while maintaining dignity and respect for all participants. This finding extends Ali’s (2017) distinction between spaces that protect normative voices versus those that prioritize marginalized experiences, revealing how educational environments can simultaneously protect vulnerability and challenge oppressive assumptions through deliberate pedagogical design. The development of these protocols emerged through constant comparative analysis of critical incidents where students disclosed personal experiences or expressed discomfort with course content.

My own positioning as educator proved crucial in developing these frameworks. As a South African woman of colour, cisgender heterosexual educator in post-apartheid South Africa, I required continuous interrogation of how my social location shapes pedagogical approaches and student interactions. Critical self-reflection revealed how my hesitancy with certain topics communicated judgment that students quickly perceived and responded to by limiting their own engagement. The way I approached developing comfort was by recognizing that gender and sexuality are topics that surround us daily, acknowledging the need to naturalize these discussions rather than treating them as exceptional or taboo. This approach aligns with Macleod’s (2015) concept of normalizing gender and sexuality in educational settings.

The first session proved critical in establishing this safe environment, where I explicitly discuss classroom expectations and the collaborative nature of our learning journey. The components of a safe space differed over the terms depending on the students, meaning the ingredients would vary between respective classes. The structured vulnerability protocols consist of four interconnected components that operationalize hooks’ (1994) engaged pedagogy within contemporary South African contexts, challenging Barrett’s (2010) critique that emotional safety hinders learning by demonstrating how sophisticated support structures enable rather than constrain intellectual challenge.

Explicit Confidentiality frameworks form the foundation of these protocols. This component emerged through instances where students disclosed personal experiences, requiring clear agreements about how such information would be held within our learning community. Students understand and collectively agree that personal stories remain within the classroom and that sharing others’ experiences outside this space violates our collective agreements. This approach draws from Smith’s (2012) indigenous knowledge systems’ emphasis on collective responsibility and cultural protocols, while recognizing that trust enables rather than guarantees vulnerability. The development of these frameworks required me to confront my own assumptions about academic discourse and recognize that my privileged position as lecturer meant I could intellectualize topics that represented lived trauma for students.

Institutional Support Integration represents the second essential component. This emerged through analysis of multiple instances where academic discussions triggered personal responses requiring professional intervention. Rather than positioning myself as a therapist—a boundary violation I became aware of in my early teaching—this component creates networks of support that extend rather than replace professional care. This approach aligns with hooks’ (1994) engaged pedagogy by recognizing the whole person in learning processes while maintaining appropriate boundaries between education and therapy. It became crucial for me to be knowledgeable about available institutional support services so I could guide students toward necessary resources when needed.

Structured Mistake-Making Opportunities emerged from recognizing that students arrived with vastly different levels of knowledge about sexual and gender diversity. Many were hesitant and fearful of backlash when contributing to discussions or asking questions. Over the years, I realized the necessity of allowing students to make mistakes, recognizing that errors typically stemmed from lack of understanding rather than intent to harm or discriminate. For students with greater knowledge or personal identification within sexually and gender-diverse identities, I encouraged them to use the classroom as an opportunity to teach rather than shame. This peer learning enabled a more neutral and less emotive teaching environment while incorporating indigenous knowledge as peers educated each other on aspects of gender and sexuality not explicit in academic literature. My own discomfort with not knowing answers to student questions became data for understanding how educator vulnerability models intellectual humility essential for transformative education. My early attempts at creating mistake-making opportunities often backfired. In my second term, I announced that ‘all questions are welcome’ but when a student asked if being gay was ‘a choice,’ I visibly tensed and responded defensively rather than creating space for exploration. My journal that day recorded “My discomfort shut down exactly the kind of question I claimed to welcome.” This taught me that my own emotional regulation was prerequisite to creating genuine learning spaces. I began practicing responses to challenging questions, developing what I now recognize as the emotional temperature-check component.

Regular Emotional Temperature Checks form the fourth component, involving ongoing assessment of collective dynamics while maintaining learning objectives. These check-ins before, during, and after sessions create opportunities for students to express concerns, ask questions, and provide feedback on the learning process, while signalling that their experiences and emotions are valued components of learning. This reinforces the collaborative nature of the educational experience (Ollis 2014) and allows for pedagogical flexibility, enabling real-time adjustments to teaching strategies based on student needs and responses. Early in my teaching, I assumed that silence indicated resistance or discomfort. However, through regular check-ins, I learned that many students processed complex information quietly before engaging. My initial attempts to ‘break the silence’ often interrupted important internal processing. This taught me to differentiate between productive silence and withdrawn disengagement.

The integration of adaptability within safe space construction emerged as essential for responsive pedagogy in gender and sexuality education. When students arrived with limited foundational knowledge about sexuality—challenging my assumptions about ‘basic’ gender and sexuality knowledge—the safe space framework required expansion to accommodate foundational learning alongside advanced discussions. This finding supports Rossouw’s (2023) analysis of heteronormative gender and sexuality education that leaves students unprepared for comprehensive tertiary-level engagement. Cultural analysis revealed how my assumptions about student knowledge and experience often reflected class and educational privilege rather than pedagogical expertise.

Student discomfort emerged not as an obstacle to learning but as a productive pedagogical tool when appropriately supported within structured vulnerability protocols. Analysis revealed patterns where initial discomfort with challenging content transformed into sophisticated engagement when students felt supported rather than judged. When students shared personal and vulnerable experiences, I often observed emotional and unresponsive reactions from fellow students, risking that the sharing student might feel embarrassed or regretful. I learned to personally thank students for their bravery in sharing while reminding the entire class of our agreed rules about confidentiality.

Spontaneous, responsive pedagogy in traditionally sensitive subject areas presents significant challenges that educators must anticipate and address. Boundary management represents the most significant risk. When students share personal trauma or vulnerable experiences, educators must distinguish between pedagogical support and therapeutic intervention. I learned to acknowledge disclosures respectfully while redirecting toward appropriate professional support rather than attempting to address trauma within academic contexts.

5.2. Progressive Exposure Pedagogy and Bidirectional Learning

Building on the foundation of structured vulnerability protocols, I developed a progressive exposure pedagogy approach that deliberately subverts traditional educational sequencing by introducing challenging content early rather than building gradually toward it. This pedagogical innovation emerged through systematic reflection on student responses to different content ordering approaches, revealing limitations in traditional gradual exposure methods that inadvertently reinforced heteronormative hierarchies.

The development of this approach was triggered by observations documented across multiple terms that students often approached gender and sexuality education with predetermined hierarchies about which practices or identities were ‘more acceptable’ than others. Traditional pedagogical sequencing, which typically progresses from ‘safer’ topics to more challenging material, inadvertently reinforced these hierarchies by suggesting that certain expressions of sexuality required greater preparation or justification than others. During my initial analytical process, I recorded instances where traditional sequencing created rather than challenged these hierarchies. One particularly revealing journal entry noted that “Beginning with heterosexual relationships and ‘building toward’ diverse and non-traditional content sends the message that heterosexuality is natural while everything else requires explanation.”

This observation aligns with queer theory’s critique of normative categorizations (Butler 1990) and supports pedagogical approaches that challenge rather than accommodate dominant assumptions. Progressive exposure pedagogy deliberately disrupts comfort zones within supportive frameworks by introducing diverse sexual practices, non-traditional relationship structures, and non-binary gender expressions early in course sequences. Rather than building toward acceptance of diversity, this approach positions diversity as the starting point for understanding human sexuality.

For example, in sessions addressing sexual behaviours and practices, I show short video clips of individuals and couples speaking about their ‘non-traditional’ sexual behaviours and practices. Students initially express surprise and discomfort, but this opening creates several pedagogical opportunities. First, it immediately challenges assumptions about ‘normal’ sexuality. Second, it demonstrates that diverse sexual practices exist within their own communities rather than being distant abstractions. Third, subsequent content appears less challenging by comparison, creating cognitive recalibration.

The theoretical foundation for this approach draws from systematic desensitization principles in cognitive–behavioural therapy (Cougle et al. 2007) but applies them to educational rather than therapeutic contexts. The goal is not to eliminate discomfort but to demonstrate that discomfort can coexist with respect and understanding. This approach supports critical pedagogy’s emphasis on problem-posing education (Freire 2018) by immediately challenging rather than gradually questioning heteronormative assumptions.

Perhaps the most unexpected discovery emerging from this progressive exposure approach was how it created space for students to consistently introduce concepts and frameworks that enriched our collective understanding. This bidirectional learning challenged my role as sole knowledge authority and expanded academic epistemologies in significant ways, positioning students as knowledge co-creators whose experiences contribute to rather than simply receive academic understanding.

The early introduction of challenging content seemed to signal to students that diverse knowledge and experiences were not only welcome but essential to our collective learning. This finding emerged through cultural analysis that positioned student contributions within broader frameworks of epistemological justice, revealing how students navigate contemporary gender and sexuality through knowledge systems that reflect lived realities and emerging social phenomena. The theme extends Chilisa’s (2012) work on indigenous research methodologies by demonstrating practical applications for integrating diverse knowledge systems into higher education contexts without appropriation or tokenism.

Two prominent examples illustrate this phenomenon of student-generated knowledge. Students introduced the concept of “gold versus platinum gays”—a hierarchy within gay communities where “platinum gays” represent those who have been born via C-section suggesting zero direct contact with a woman’s genitalia, while “gold gays” have only been with same-sex partners but born through natural birth. This categorization, originating in social media discourse, reflects how contemporary LGBTQ+ communities create internal hierarchies around authenticity and sexual history. Similarly, students educated me about how bisexuality is increasingly understood as “trending” on social media platforms like TikTok and Instagram, where young people experiment with bisexual identity as part of broader identity exploration. Social media platforms emerged as significant sites of identity exploration and community formation that generate new vocabularies and understanding about sexual and gender diversity.

These student-contributed concepts required me to adapt session content in real time. Rather than dismissing these ideas as non-academic, I integrated them into theoretical discussions about identity formation, authenticity, and the role of digital spaces in contemporary sexuality. This approach validated student expertise while demonstrating how academic frameworks can accommodate emerging social phenomena. The integration of student knowledge required confronting my own positioning as knowledge authority and developing pedagogical approaches that respect student expertise while maintaining academic rigor.

During the analytical process, thematic analysis revealed patterns where dismissing student-contributed concepts as ‘non-academic’ reproduced colonial knowledge hierarchies that Santos (2014) identifies as epistemological injustice. This finding challenges traditional power dynamics in higher education by questioning fundamental assumptions about whose knowledge is considered valuable in academic discourse about gender and sexuality. My own transformation from knowledge deliverer to collaborative learner became essential data for understanding how I needed to model intellectual humility when engaging with diverse knowledge systems.

The integration of indigenous knowledge extends beyond individual concepts to encompass cultural practices and beliefs students bring from diverse South African communities. Cultural analysis revealed how students from rural Zulu communities contributed understanding of traditional gender roles alongside urban township perspectives on gender fluidity, creating knowledge exchanges that no single academic text could provide. This finding supports theoretical frameworks emphasizing collective knowledge construction while demonstrating practical applications that honour rather than tokenize diverse cultural perspectives. However, I wrongly assumed that validating student knowledge meant accepting all contributions uncritically. When students shared culturally based homophobic perspectives, I struggled between respecting cultural knowledge and challenging harmful beliefs. My initial attempts to avoid this tension by redirecting conversations ultimately served neither learning nor justice. I had to learn that honouring diverse knowledge systems does not mean abandoning critical analysis.

Analysis revealed that progressive exposure pedagogy functions most effectively when implemented within structured vulnerability protocols that provide support for processing challenging content while creating space for indigenous knowledge emergence. Students require explicit frameworks for understanding that their discomfort reflects socialized assumptions rather than inherent properties of diverse sexual and gender expressions. This finding demonstrates the interconnected nature of the pedagogical innovations examined, where safe space construction enables rather than constrains challenging educational content and indigenous knowledge integration.

5.3. Peer Learning and Collective Knowledge Construction

My academic training emphasized instructor expertise, making it initially uncomfortable to acknowledge student knowledge that exceeded my own. As someone who had succeeded in traditional educational systems, stepping back from authority felt like professional failure rather than pedagogical innovation. The small class environment (typically 15–25 students) facilitated intimate learning communities where the convergence of structured vulnerability protocols, progressive exposure pedagogy, and indigenous knowledge integration transformed traditional teacher–student hierarchies into collaborative knowledge construction. This finding extends critical pedagogy’s emphasis on dialogical education (Freire 2018) by demonstrating how demographic diversity functions as educational resource rather than pedagogical challenge when appropriately facilitated.

Students from diverse backgrounds created learning opportunities that enhanced understanding for all participants. Rather than creating conflict, this diversity generated an environment where students learn from each other rather than solely from educator expertise. This finding challenges traditional academic hierarchies by demonstrating how peer learning can enhance rather than compromise educational rigor.

A particularly powerful example occurred during discussions of traditional marriage practices, where a student from a traditional Zulu family explained lobola (bride price) negotiations while a student witness to a same-sex marriage provided insights into adapting traditional ceremonies for LGBTQ+ couples. These exchanges created learning opportunities no textbook could provide while demonstrating how traditional and contemporary practices can coexist and adapt. Such moments revealed how students’ backgrounds became pedagogical resources that enriched understanding for the entire learning community. This is the type of indigenous knowledge exchange that progressive exposure pedagogy had opened space for.

The facilitation of peer learning required developing sophisticated techniques for ensuring all voices were heard without tokenizing individuals as representatives of entire communities. Through iterative coding processes, I identified strategies for distributing speaking opportunities and validating different types of expertise—lived experience, academic knowledge, and cultural wisdom—while maintaining collective learning objectives. This approach operationalizes indigenous knowledge systems’ emphasis on collective learning while recognizing particular dynamics of higher education contexts.

My role as educator transformed significantly within this peer learning environment. Rather than maintaining authority as sole knowledge source, I became a facilitator of knowledge exchanges, learning to step back when students were teaching each other while stepping forward when academic frameworks could enhance or contextualize their contributions. This required continuous examination of my assumptions about whose knowledge deserved academic attention and recognition that my expertise lay increasingly in creating conditions for collaborative learning rather than delivering predetermined content.

The integration of peer learning with progressive exposure pedagogy created synergistic effects where challenging content became more accessible through peer support and diverse perspectives. Students often expressed greater openness to reconsidering assumptions when challenged by peers rather than educators, supporting theoretical frameworks about horizontal rather than hierarchical knowledge transfer in transformative education. When students heard peers discussing diverse sexual practices or gender expressions within the progressive exposure framework, the peer relationships provided additional safety and credibility that enhanced rather than competed with the structured vulnerability protocols.

The collective knowledge construction process revealed how the pedagogical innovations operated as an integrated system rather than separate techniques. Structured vulnerability protocols created the foundation for students to share indigenous knowledge, progressive exposure pedagogy positioned this knowledge as valuable from the outset, and peer learning processes allowed these contributions to enhance understanding for the entire learning community. Students became co-educators within this system, taking responsibility not only for their own learning but for supporting their peers’ growth and understanding.

These interconnected findings demonstrate how innovative pedagogical approaches in gender and sexuality education require sophisticated integration of theoretical frameworks, methodological rigor, and personal transformation. The analysis reveals that effective pedagogy extends far beyond content delivery to encompass creation of learning environments where collaborative knowledge construction can flourish while maintaining appropriate boundaries and support systems. Most significantly, this autoethnographic examination demonstrates how systematic reflection can transform both teaching practices and theoretical understanding of how learning occurs in traditionally sensitive subject areas, revealing the potential for higher education to become truly collaborative spaces where diverse knowledge systems enhance rather than compete with academic discourse.

6. Implications and Recommendations

This autoethnographic study demonstrates that effective pedagogy in gender and sexuality education requires moving beyond traditional lecture-based approaches toward collaborative knowledge construction. The findings reveal several critical implications for educational practice and institutional development.

Implementing structured vulnerability protocols, progressive exposure pedagogy, and indigenous knowledge integration requires fundamental shifts in educator preparation and institutional support. Beginning courses with diverse content signals inclusivity while creating cognitive recalibration but demands sophisticated facilitation skills and institutional backing for educators who may face resistance. The autoethnographic nature of this study means these insights reflect particular positioning and experiences, requiring educators to develop their own comfort levels rather than simply replicating described practices.

Developing protocols for integrating student-generated knowledge necessitates educator humility and flexibility, requiring skills in connecting student contributions to academic frameworks without dismissing or appropriating cultural wisdom. This challenges traditional power dynamics while enhancing educational quality when appropriately facilitated.

Higher education institutions must address structural barriers limiting innovative approaches through comprehensive educator preparation addressing both content knowledge and personal comfort with diverse sexualities and gender expressions. Trauma-informed policies must recognize disclosure likelihood and provide systematic support networks extending beyond individual educator capabilities. Academic freedom protection balanced with community accountability acknowledges that challenging heteronormative assumptions may generate resistance while serving essential educational purposes.

While findings emerge from small class dynamics, core principles can be adapted through technology-enhanced approaches establishing structured vulnerability protocols via anonymous polling systems and digital platforms. Progressive exposure pedagogy can be adapted for larger classes by using videos and interactive media to introduce challenging content early. Discussion activities can be structured so students first think individually, then discuss in pairs, and finally share selected insights with the whole class, making difficult topics more manageable in large groups. Indigenous knowledge integration requires digital storytelling platforms, rotating expert panels, and community asset mapping projects.

7. Limitations and Future Research Directions

The autoethnographic methodology, while valuable for documenting educator transformation, presents inherent limitations. Institutional and demographic specificity limits transferability across different educational contexts. Educator subjectivity means alternative interpretations remain possible, and different educators might implement similar approaches with varying outcomes based on positionality, institutional context, and personal characteristics.

Student perspective represents a significant gap in this educator-focused approach. While informal feedback suggests positive responses, formal assessment requires different methodological approaches centring student voices through interviews, focus groups, or participatory action research examining experiences of these pedagogical innovations.

Comparative studies examining similar pedagogical approaches across diverse institutional contexts would illuminate which elements transfer broadly versus those specific to particular environments. Research examining how educator demographics, comfort levels, and institutional positioning influence effectiveness would enhance understanding of implementation factors and necessary supports. Future investigations could explore how these innovations function across diverse educational contexts while examining sustained transformation in professional attitudes and skills among graduates entering helping professions.

8. Conclusions

This autoethnographic study documents the development of innovative pedagogical approaches in gender and sexuality education through systematic analysis of three years of teaching practice in South African higher education. The research demonstrates how structured vulnerability protocols, progressive exposure pedagogy, and indigenous knowledge integration can transform traditional educational hierarchies into collaborative learning environments while maintaining academic rigor. The findings reveal that effective pedagogy in sensitive subject areas requires fundamental reconceptualization of educator roles and knowledge validation processes. Rather than positioning educators as sole authorities delivering predetermined content, this study illustrates how creating conditions for bidirectional learning enhances educational outcomes while respecting diverse epistemologies. The integration of student-generated knowledge challenges colonial knowledge hierarchies while expanding academic understanding of contemporary gender and sexuality.

The autoethnographic methodology proved essential for documenting the personal transformation inherent in teaching sensitive subjects. My professional development from traditional content-focused instruction to facilitative pedagogy required examining assumptions about academic authority and developing skills in collaborative knowledge construction. The systematic reflection process revealed how educator uncertainty, when appropriately supported through institutional frameworks, can become a pedagogical resource that models intellectual humility and enables authentic engagement with diverse knowledge systems. This professional evolution—shifting from knowledge delivery to creating conditions for collective learning—became central to establishing learning environments where students could contribute their own expertise and experiences.

This research contributes to autoethnographic scholarship by demonstrating how systematic reflection can generate theoretical insights about transformative pedagogy while providing practical guidance for educators working in sensitive subject areas. The integration of personal experience with cultural analysis and theoretical engagement offers a model for examining how individual teaching practice connects to broader social justice goals in higher education.

Ultimately, this study reveals that effective gender and sexuality education requires more than content delivery. It necessitates creation of learning environments where collaborative knowledge construction can flourish while maintaining appropriate boundaries and support systems. The documented pedagogical innovations offer concrete strategies for implementing such approaches while acknowledging the ongoing challenges inherent in transformative education within complex cultural and institutional contexts.