The Educational Community and the Inclusion of LGBTIQ+ Students: Towards a Rainbow School Free from LGBTIQphobia

Abstract

In a society that advocates for human rights, a moralistic, needs-based approach is incompatible with policies and practices that ensure educational inclusion for all individuals regardless of gender identity or sexual orientation. This study analyses the perspectives of members of the educational community on sex–gender diversity. Specifically, it presents the views of 32 individuals from four primary schools located in southern Andalusia. A qualitative methodology based on interviews and content analysis was employed, supported by NVIVO12 software. The findings reveal differing understandings of sex–gender diversity; the school’s stance on such diversity and, particularly, on LGBTIQ+phobia; as well as the role of initial teacher training in this area.

1. Introduction

Diversity is a positive value that must be appreciated from the earliest stages of the education system; schools should embrace sex–gender diversities to foster social coexistence and prevent discrimination and abuse, which result in suffering, inequality, and conflict (Penna, 2017; Antoni & Sancho, 2019). In line with this, we must not overlook that schools are key settings for the reproduction of cisheteronormative identities and practices that devalue, marginalise, and erase all identities that do not fit the hegemonic model (Ramírez Aristizábal & Cardona Zuluaga, 2020; Lópes Louro, 2007; Darré et al., 2016). Authors such as Romero and Gallardo (2019) argue that education should not be considered neutral, given its significant influence on society; it can, in fact, perpetuate inequality and maintain the status quo.

Silencing or denying sex–gender diversity in classrooms constitutes a discriminatory strategy that results in rejection and exclusion, as what is not seen is neither recognised nor valued. While the invisibility of sexuality in general is widespread, the invisibility of non-normative sexualities is nearly absolute in educational settings (Granero & García, 2019; Sánchez Torrejón, 2021). This creates an unsafe and discouraging school environment for LGTBI+ students, who face difficulties and challenges in navigating a system that does not acknowledge or include them (Fernández, 2016). According to research conducted by the COGAM association in schools across the Madrid region in 2019, 37% of LGBTIQ+ students witnessed insults due to being or appearing homosexual, bisexual, or trans, and 12% experienced such insults directly. Among trans students, the rate rises to 24%. A study by Goldfarb (2006) found that verbal homophobia is highly prevalent in primary education, matching the societal level of such insults. Classrooms, according to this author, mirror the outside world. Renold (2002) also contributed to the discussion, exploring how primary school children strive to form a “heterosexual identity” by mimicking adult relationships (dating, kissing, etc.). He noted some boys feared being “contaminated” by spending time with their “girlfriends”. He reflects on how boys are encouraged from an early age to affirm their masculinity by rejecting the “feminine” and even bullying girls or other boys perceived as “effeminate”. By around age five, children are aware of anatomical differences and begin affirming their identity as boys or girls, leading to rejection of traits associated with the opposite group and early homophobic expressions like insulting peers who do not conform.

In conclusion, bullying of LGTBIQ+ individuals often begin in the final years of primary school, typically manifesting as psychological violence, discriminatory attitudes, exclusion, and verbal abuse. This is exacerbated by the silence of affected students, who fear rejection or retaliation, and by teachers’ lack of awareness (Gómez-Fernández, 2019). Scholars identify key features of this form of bullying, such as the invisibility of sex–gender diversity in classrooms, stigma contagion, injurious discourse, normalised discriminatory practices, and a lack of support networks (Carrer & Cifuentes, 2019; Pichardo, 2012), which ultimately culminate in various forms of violence (Angoff & Barnhart, 2021; Döring et al., 2022).

According to Takács (2006), within education, it is important to state that all these experiences of bullying and exclusion lead to higher rates of academic failure and dropout among LGBTIQ+ students, with a negative impact on their capacity to transition successfully into the workforce and adulthood with confidence.

Therefore, addressing sex–gender diversity in schools must begin with a social deconstruction of the concept. In an educational community, understanding diversity requires acknowledging the current problem and striving for change—questioning the categories that underpin our cisheteronormative perspective, which in turn shapes our actions. As Prince (2020) states, schools must establish protocols that promote values such as respect and tolerance. This is about securing the values of an inclusive school that fosters a sense of belonging, acceptance, and support among students and members of the school community while meeting educational needs (Arnaiz Sánchez, 1996; Pearpoint & Forest, 1999), preventing any form of discrimination based on identity or sexual orientation (Echeita, 2006; Salas & Salas, 2016), and challenging stereotypes to build a school free of LGBTIQphobia (Duque & Teixido, 2016).

One way to achieve this goal is to “include affective-sexual diversity as part of the teaching-learning process, ensuring that LGBT students are not excluded from classrooms and that their needs are addressed by the school itself” (Penna, 2012, p. 376). This education goes hand in hand with empowering students by providing them with knowledge, skills, and positive values to understand and enjoy their sexuality, to establish healthy, fulfilling relationships, and to take responsibility for their own well-being and that of others (Martínez et al., 2022)

To this, Darling-Hammond et al. (1999) add that in addition to resources and a well-trained teaching staff, collaboration among all educational community members is vital to advancing recognition of diversity and equal opportunities—in other words, going beyond the classroom. Casanova and Rodríguez (2009) highlight the need for stronger legislative commitment to ensure that educational regulations include content on this subject. Sánchez Torrejón et al. (2023) and Prince (2020) also note that real change begins with initial teacher training that equips future educators in sex–gender diversity. Ultimately, incorporating sex–gender diversity in schools opens a discursive space that, according to Flores (2008), invites the entire educational community to collectively address new pedagogical challenges. As Sonlleva Velasco and Torrego (2020) assert, education should promote critical, respectful, and engaged participation in society. This goal is reinforced by the Sustainable Development Goals, particularly SDG 4, which calls for inclusive and equitable quality education and lifelong learning opportunities for all. According to Colina-Martín (2021), “the Agenda broadly sets goals that call for truly transformative measures to recognise and protect affective, sexual, and gender diversity” (p. 65).

In Spain, where this research is based, the enactment of Organic Law 3/2020, amending Organic Law 2/2006 on Education, marks an unprecedented step in recognising sex–gender diversity. The reform introduces a new subject on civic and ethical values, focused on equality, human rights, affective–sexual diversity, and gender violence prevention. It also mandates affective–sexual education from early childhood, when children begin discovering their sexuality and constructing gender identity. The law encourages the inclusion of female role models across subject areas to challenge gender stereotypes and establishes protocols for responding to gender violence in schools. Thus, the current legal context is favourable for advancing the recognition of sex–gender diversity. However, despite these reforms, outdated practices that reinforce the status quo and discrimination based on sex–gender identity persist.

Given all this, we believe it is essential to listen to the educational community in primary schools to understand how schools perceive sex–gender diversity. This perspective offers a wide array of interpretations of a single reality, helping us continue working towards building schools free from LGBTIQphobia, where all students can freely express their sexual orientation and gender identity from childhood.

2. Materials and Methods

The study adopted a qualitative methodology based on content analysis coded with the support of NVIVO12 software. The chosen technique was the in-depth, individual interview conducted using a pre-established semi-structured questionnaire. This technique was selected due to its ability to explore firsthand what occurs in educational centres regarding the inclusion of sex–gender diversity. It allows for an understanding of school events from the perspective of those involved, whose testimonies help elucidate the educational community’s stance in the fight against LGBTQphobia.

A depth interview is, according to Kahn and Cannell (1997), a constructed or created situation that enables individuals to express their thoughts, beliefs, or experiences through conversation from a subjective standpoint. These interviews were conducted in Spanish, recorded in audio format, and later transcribed while maintaining the anonymity of the interviewee and the name of the educational centre at all times.

Regarding ethical considerations, this study views informed consent as a cornerstone of qualitative research ethics (Powell & Single, 1996), alongside respect for informants and their autonomous decisions. Therefore, participation must be entirely voluntary and based on adequate understanding to enable individuals to make informed decisions about themselves. As González Ávila (2002) explains, specific requirements for informed consent include information on risks, purpose, benefits, and alternatives to the research; understanding of this information and of their personal situation; and the ability to make a free decision regarding participation. Reliable alternatives must be sought to ensure participants accept the research terms under all the aforementioned conditions. Thus, in this study, we opted for written informed consent. We must also emphasise researchers’ responsibility towards their participants, including a commitment to protecting informants and respecting their right to privacy.

2.1. Sample and Context

A total of 32 interviews (n = 32) were conducted with various members of the educational community from four primary education centres (two public and two private schools). Of the 32 interviewees, 4 were headteachers, 4 belonged to the family category, 4 were heads of studies, 16 were teachers, and 4 were school secretaries. The opinions of students were not considered in this sample, as the study focused on adult voices and how their perspectives influence the perception and treatment of children (see

Table 1. Sample data.

No.	School Type	Roles	Sex Distribution
8	Public	4 teachers; 1 headteacher; 1 head of studies; 1 secretary; 1 parent	6 men and 10 women
8	Public	4 teachers; 1 headteacher; 1 head of studies; 1 secretary; 1 parent
8	Private	4 teachers; 1 headteacher; 1 head of studies; 1 secretary; 1 parent	9 men and 7 women
8	Private	4 teachers; 1 headteacher; 1 head of studies; 1 secretary; 1 parent

below).

The interviews were conducted in person at the interviewee’s workplace, following a pre-designed script with semi-structured questions intended to stimulate dialogue. All interviews were recorded and subsequently transcribed. Participants were selected using the snowball sampling method, that is, through referrals. While the sampling process was guided by this approach, care was taken to ensure that the sample reflected the perspectives of teachers from schools with different types of ownership—specifically, both public and private institutions.

The selection of two different schools under different types of ownership (public and private) is because, in Spain, there are important differences between these two models in terms of the degree of state control, financial cost to families, and the predominance of the Catholic religion in the curricula. These are factors that can affect the values with regard to tolerance and gender diversity that are developed in the classroom and present in teacher training.

2.2. Data Analysis

The data obtained from the 32 interviews across the four schools with different members of the educational community were clearly descriptive. Most themes that emerged were direct responses to the pre-designed interview questions. The data were analysed through a systemic content and question analysis, focusing on the frequency of words and expressions. To achieve this, the researchers thoroughly reviewed the interview transcripts, identifying overarching themes (dimensions) and emerging categories (

Table 2. Summary of the main topics explored through the interviews.

1.  Construction of the concept of sex–gender diversity Definition of sex–gender diversity Identification of sex–gender diversity (timing and patterns) 2.  The school in relation to sex–gender diversity Xenophobic manifestations Reactive actions in response to xenophobic manifestations Obstacles when addressing sex–gender diversity 3.  Training on sex–gender diversity Receipt of training Assessment of specialised training

). These categories were then used to compare and contrast responses among participant groups, based on the type of school and the roles of participants, enabling a deeper understanding of each group’s perspective on the issue under investigation. The information was not analysed by sex, as this was assigned at the time of the interview and not self-selected by the participants. NVIVO12, a computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software, was used for data management and analysis.

3. Results

As previously mentioned, the data were systematised by categories and organised into three dimensions, which are as follows: Dimension 1. Construction of the concept of sex–gender diversity (incorporating two analytical categories); 2. The school in relation to sex–gender diversity (incorporating three analytical categories); and 3. Training on sex–gender diversity (incorporating two analytical categories).

3.1. Dimension 1. Construction of the Concept of Sex–Gender Diversity

In this dimension, the data reveal how different members of an educational community define sex–gender diversity and position themselves in relation to it, constructing, through comparison, a normative way of being “diverse”. To this end, first, what they understand by affective–sexual diversity is analysed, and secondly, those aspects which, in their opinion, identify sex–gender diversity (positioning towards otherness) are explored.

As can be seen in

Table 3. Concept of affective–sexual diversity according to school ownership.

	School Ownership		Total N = 32
Nodes	Public N = 16	Private N =16
From early childhood	5	3	8
During adolescence	0	4	4
In primary education	1	2	3
Total	5	8	13

, for the interviewees, affective–sexual diversity is mostly related to the right and freedom to love and be with whomever one wishes (14 references) and to the different forms of expressing affection and sexuality (13 references). To a lesser extent, affective–sexual diversity is linked to different forms of relationships between genders (five references) or to respect for feeling different (six references). Finally, it is worth noting one reference that does not respond directly to the question but instead states from the outset that the topic of affective–sexual diversity has no place within the educational sphere. Comparatively, according to the type of school ownership, the responses do not differ greatly except that privately owned schools tend to associate affective–sexual diversity more with values such as respect and tolerance, whereas in public schools a rights-based approach predominates.

Another category encompassed within this dimension was the identification of sex–gender diversity, specifically the moment or developmental stage at which interviewees believe such diversity can be identified, as well as the factors that, according to them, facilitate this identification. The results are presented in

Table 4. Stage of identification of sex–gender diversity according to school ownership.

	School Ownership		Total N = 32
Nodes	Public N = 16	Private N = 16
Right and freedom to love and be with whomever one chooses	8	6	14
Different forms of affective and sexual expression	8	5	13
Different forms of relationships between genders	2	3	5
Has no place within the educational context	1	0	1
Respect for feeling different	1	5	6
Total	20	19	39

below.

As can be observed, the majority of participants from public schools reported that it is possible to identify this diversity from early childhood, whereas most references made by representatives of private schools indicated that identification does not occur until the child reaches adolescence.

With regard to the indicators or aspects that, according to the interviewees, enable the identification of affective–sexual diversity, these are primarily derived from a contrast with heteronormative behaviour, as opposed to what is perceived, in their view, as characteristic of male or female homosexual behaviour, as well as of trans identity. These are, therefore, generalisations that shape prevailing conceptions of the various forms of sex–gender diversity.

The findings are presented in

Table 5. Indicators or aspects used to identify female homosexuality.

	School Ownership		Total N = 32
Nodes	Public N = 16	Private N = 16
Affinity with individuals of the opposite sex	3	1	4
Through play	5	8	13
Hairstyle	2	0	2
Clothing	5	2	7
Total	6	8	14

,

Table 6. Indicators or aspects used to identify male homosexuality.

	School Ownership		Total N = 32
Nodes	Public N = 16	Private N = 16
Affinity with individuals of the opposite sex	9	10	19
Interest in dancing	4	0	4
Through play	7	7	14
Hairstyle	2	0	2
Effeminate behaviour	3	5	8
Clothing	4	1	5
Accuracy in artistic tasks	0	3	3
Sensitivity	8	1	9
Total	15	13	28

and

Table 7. Indicators or aspects used to identify trans identity.

	School Ownership		Total N = 32
Nodes	Public N = 16	Private N = 16
Change of name	1	1	2
The way of referring to oneself	1	0	1
Total	2	1	3

below. As can be observed, there is a greater number of references associated with indicators of male homosexuality (28 references) in comparison to female homosexuality (14 references) or trans identity (2 references). The latter is rarely identified unless the individual explicitly expresses a change of name or refers to themselves using a gender opposite to their biological sex.

Regarding the key indicators used to identify male homosexuality, the most frequently cited was an affinity with individuals of the opposite sex (19 references). In the case of female homosexuality, the most prominent indicator was engagement in play, particularly when associated with football (13 references).

From a comparative perspective, it can be concluded that interviewees from schools of both types of ownership referred to similar key indicators. However, a significant difference lies in the range of aspects considered: those from public schools demonstrated a broader array of identification indicators (13 aspects) than those from private schools (10 aspects).

3.2. Dimension 2. The School’s Response to Sex–Gender Diversity

This second dimension analyses aspects related to the actions—or lack thereof—taken by schools in response to sex–gender diversity. Specifically, three aspects are examined: the existence of homophobic manifestations, both reactive and proactive responses to such violence, and the barriers faced by educational professionals when addressing sex–gender diversity at both classroom and institutional levels.

With regard to homophobic manifestations,

Table 8. Homophobic manifestations in schools by type of ownership.

	School Ownership		Total N = 32
Nodes	Public N = 16	Private N = 16
Social exclusion	2	4	6
Verbal insults	11	10	21
No cases reported in primary education	0	3	3
Occurs during breaks or physical education	1	1	2
Total	11	12	23

below shows that most references associated with this item in both public and private schools refer to verbal insults as the most common form of aggression directed towards homosexual individuals (21 references). Common insults include “marica” or “gay” in reference to male homosexuals and “machorra” in the case of females. Although there is only one direct reference to incidents occurring during break time or physical education, several interviewees indirectly suggested that such verbal violence is more closely monitored within the classroom setting. Lastly, there are three references from private schools stating that, in their primary education settings, no homophobic manifestations are present.

With regard to school responses to homophobic incidents,

Table 9. School actions in response to homophobic manifestations by type of ownership.

	School Ownership		Total N = 32
Nodes	Public N = 16	Private N = 16
Peer vigilance	1	0	1
Campaigns	3	0	3
Religious retreats	0	1	1
Coeducation coordinator	2	0	2
Parent training	2	2	4
Not specifically addressed	6	5	11
Gender identity protocol	1	0	1
Sanctions for xenophobia	1	2	3
Ignored	1	0	1
Group tutorials	10	4	14
Individual tutorials	2	5	7
Total	15	12	27

below demonstrates that the majority of interventions occur at the classroom level, with relatively few actions reported at the whole-school level. Group tutorials (14 references) and individual tutorials (7 references) led by tutors with pupils and families are the most frequently cited forms of response.

Furthermore, a total of 11 references indicate that no specific intervention is carried out in their schools when homophobic incidents, such as verbal insults, occur. In some cases, these behaviours are dismissed as “children’s mischief” or are addressed through a general framework of respect and tolerance, rather than being recognised as violence against homosexual individuals.

From a comparative perspective, the most notable difference lies in the use of group tutorials: these are more commonly reported in public schools, while private schools report a higher number of references to individual tutorials in comparison to their public counterparts.

Finally, it is important to refer to the obstacles encountered when addressing sex–gender diversity in classrooms and educational institutions. As shown in

Table 10. Obstacles to addressing gender and sexual diversity in schools by type of ownership.

	School Ownership		Total N = 32
Nodes	Public N = 16	Private N = 16
Lack of training	1	0	1
Fear	4	6	10
Lack of family acceptance	2	5	7
No obstacles	1	0	1
Prejudices	5	6	11
Religious/private values	1	2	3
Taboo subject	5	6	11
Total	14	13	27

below, the greatest barriers are teachers’ fear of parental reactions or potential complaints, as well as prevailing social prejudices. The topic remains a taboo, and many families do not accept their child’s sex–gender identity. Institutional or regulatory obstacles are scarcely mentioned, with the issue being largely attributed to sociocultural factors related to the family and surrounding environment. The role of the educational centre here is one of raising awareness and fostering understanding. One teacher specifically highlights the importance of running parenting programmes. Comparatively, both public and private schools report encountering largely the same types of obstacles.

3.3. Dimension 3. Training on Gender and Sexual Diversity

This third dimension focuses on two areas: the training received by educators on gender and sexual diversity and their evaluation of the importance of such training.

As indicated in

Table 11. Training received by interviewees according to school ownership.

	School Ownership		Total N = 32
Nodes	Public N = 16	Private N = 16
Emotional education	1	0	1
No specific training received	9	10	19
Yes, I have received specific training	1	0	1
On gender equality	2	1	3
Total	11	10	21

, the vast majority of respondents reported not having received specific training on this subject. A small number associated gender and sexual diversity training with emotional education or gender equality courses. Only one individual across all interviews had received specific training through collaboration with an external association.

Public school respondents were slightly more likely to associate this training with broader topics like emotional education and gender equality.

Table 12. Evaluation of the importance of specific training in gender and sexual diversity.

	School Ownership		Total N = 32
Nodes	Public N = 16	Private N = 16
To initiate discussion on the topic	1	1	2
To manage the issue effectively in the classroom	7	11	18
For raising awareness among staff	2	1	3
Positive valuation of receiving such training	13	14	27
Total	23	27	50

below presents the assessment given by the interviewees regarding the value of receiving specific training on sex–gender diversity, as well as the reasons behind their positive or negative evaluations. Out of the entire sample, 27 individuals stated that they considered such training to be beneficial. The remainder did not respond directly to the question, and only two participants expressed the view that such training was neither important nor a priority. Among those who responded positively, the vast majority emphasised the necessity of this training in order to address the topic in the classroom. Their responses referred to two main aspects: firstly, that it should be treated as just another subject area, like mathematics or language, and secondly, that it is essential for supporting students with a sex–gender orientation other than heterosexual, as well as for preventing and addressing harassment based on sex–gender orientation.

4. Discussion

Once the information had been organised, we proceeded to discuss the data collected. This phase of the research essentially consisted of making sense of the information gathered, uncovering the multiple meanings conveyed through the various contributions of the participants regarding the object of study, and contrasting these findings with existing academic theory on the subject.

The results initially point to a lack of knowledge within the educational community about the concept of sex–gender diversity. Understanding this concept is linked to the recognition of a complex process of personal identity construction, wherein psychobiological and cultural aspects converge (Lizárraga Cruchaga, 1987). Not knowing what it means may equate to denying the existence of a plural reality that transcends heteronormativity.

An interesting insight emerges from the analysis of how the concept of “sex–gender diversity” is perceived according to the type of school (public or private): public schools tend to associate it with the right to be and feel free, whereas in private institutions the concept is more often linked to values such as respect and tolerance. In this regard, it can be stated that in a non-neutral context characterised by a plurality of identities, promoting values alone may be insufficient to bring about real change in the face of homophobic attitudes. Recognition of any kind of diversity in unequal societies should not be founded on a declaration of moral principles but rather on the guarantee of rights—primarily the right to feel different within a context of practical and concrete diversity (Salinas, 2006). This point therefore marks a turning point when it comes to designing and implementing programmes and projects on this subject in schools.

Another issue addressed in this discussion relates to the findings regarding how participants identify sex–gender diversity. While the majority of interviewees state that such diversity is expressed during early childhood, respondents from private schools tend to identify adolescence as the stage at which it manifests. This is a noteworthy finding, as it perpetuates a particular perspective on children as asexual beings. From this adult gaze, sexuality is linked to reproduction and, thus, to puberty, while children are associated with innocence and helplessness, as those “who lack reason and, therefore, do not understand the mysteries of life” (López Louro, 1999, p. 8). As Freud might argue, culture has denied the existence of a demonstrable fact: that children begin constructing their sex–gender identities from an early age. Connell (2002) similarly argues that each school has its own gender regime, which includes rules, expectations, and a hierarchical order that shapes different repertoires of action and directly affects the conditions determining students’ personal and sexual identities.

Another element worth considering in the analysis of sex–gender diversity identification is how interviewees refer to patterns of recognition of male and female homosexuality and trans identities. These existing recognition patterns of non-heteronormative students reflect specific perspectives on sex–gender diversity and, particularly, on alternative masculinities (Halberstam, 2008), largely shaped by binarism. Butler (2001) defines this as the expression of a masculine imaginary transformed into scientific discourse, in which nature is represented as a void, inert, “feminine” space ready to be penetrated by a “masculine” cultural inscription. In this sense, the school, as a transmitter of hegemonic masculinity, represses alternative masculinities, especially male homosexuality, which it “identifies and punishes” for failing to conform to socially constructed norms meant to differentiate men from women, who are viewed as inferior and powerless (Connell, 2013). Meanwhile, masculine behaviours exhibited by lesbian women are more likely to go unnoticed normatively, given that women do not generally hold power within patriarchal structures. However, as Halberstam (2008) points out, these behaviours provide clues as to how masculinities are constructed. According to the author, “female masculinities are considered the rejected scraps of dominant masculinity, so that male masculinity may appear as the authentic one” (2008, n.p.).

As for trans identities, these tend to go entirely unnoticed until the individual publicly identifies as such, at which point the interviewees become aware. All of these conceptions ultimately correspond to structural logics that, as Bard Wigdor (2021) notes, may result in “a continuum of gender-based violence within sex-affective relationships” (p. 3).

This leads us to the results concerning schools and, specifically, the experiences of rejection or bullying endured by LGBTIQ+ students during primary education. Insults stand out as the most common form of violence faced by homosexual students. These results are consistent with other empirical studies, such as the one conducted by COGAM (2013) with a sample of 7408 students from the Madrid region, or that of Goldfarb (2006), who concluded that the level of verbal abuse in a school reflects the broader social environment. Faced with this normalisation of verbal and symbolic violence towards LGBTIQ+ individuals, students feel that the safest course of action is to remain silent about their sexual orientation or gender identity (COGAM, 2019). One reason for this is the phenomenon known as “stigma contagion,” which suggests that those who support victims of homophobic or transphobic violence often suffer similar consequences as the direct targets of aggression.

The educational community’s typical reaction is to trivialise the issue, brushing it aside with remarks such as “they’re just kids,” “they don’t mean any harm,” or “it’s just part of how we speak, like calling someone an idiot or a jerk.” According to Marquet (2006), such attitudes foster the normalisation of homophobia and deny the need to challenge deep-rooted traditions. This reflects the banalisation of violence in educational settings through “jokes” and the failure to interrogate the underlying reasons for these behaviours, which contribute to the reproduction and perpetuation of rejection and bullying towards homosexual students. According to Avilés et al. (2011), the school environment is often aware that bullying is taking place but fails to intervene—indeed, after witnessing an act of aggression, bystanders often become more aggressive themselves. As previously mentioned, this creates a form of social contagion that inhibits intervention and may even encourage participation in harassment. In this regard, we rely on Lópes Louro’s (2001) assertion that “ignorance is not neutral, nor is it an ‘original state’; it is neither a lack nor absence of knowledge but rather an effect of knowledge itself” (p. 17). This author is inspired by the concept of “powerful ignorance” from Sedwick’s book titled Tendencies (Sedgwick, 1993) who suggested that knowledge and understanding can be actively constructed and maintained through a strategic acceptance of what is not known or what is actively avoided.

In addition to inaction, another common response from educational institutions is to use group tutoring sessions as standard measures within guidance and tutorial action programmes to address conflicts within classroom groups. These sessions are predominantly reactive, implemented after problems have arisen. However, they can be more effective when also used preventatively and complemented by awareness-raising and educational programmes targeting the entire school community, alongside a basic response protocol to address all forms of homophobic violence (Avilés et al., 2011).

Finally, this discussion highlights the importance of eliminating the barriers that continue to prevent the effective integration of sex–gender diversity topics in classrooms. Chief among these is teachers’ “fear” of possible reprisals from families when addressing such issues. Teachers from both public and private schools report feeling under pressure from families; they feel threatened, insecure, and unfairly judged. In response, they tend to avoid the topic altogether—a topic that remains taboo, particularly when working with minors. Incorporating teachers’ fears into training programmes and exploring ways to manage them could be crucial for addressing the social inequalities and injustices that non-heteronormative students face in schools. Training, in this sense, facilitates systematic engagement with the issue, enabling educators to explore its deeper dimensions, connect with the complex personal processes that students may be undergoing, and reflect on their own experiences.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, the present study reveals that sex–gender diversity remains a taboo subject in educational institutions. The lack of recognition of sex–gender diversity during the planning of educational interventions reflects that it is not considered a priority within schools, thus exposing non-heteronormative students to exclusion and violence. We are aware that the failure to acknowledge sex–gender diversity means that schools legitimise and perpetuate the stigma and rejection experienced by students who transgress socially expected norms regarding gender and sexuality.

In line with this, our research has identified how LGBTIQ-phobia, sexism, and the values associated with heterosexism continue to underpin the current educational system. These frameworks foster exclusion, isolation, and violence against non-heteronormative students. The study highlights the sexist stereotypes held by the educational community regarding sex–gender diversity, which are transmitted and perpetuated through the hidden curriculum. This implicit and non-curricular (i.e., non-official) transmission of conceptions surrounding affective–sexual diversity directly affects the full development of students, particularly when such practices are discriminatory in nature.

We begin from the reflection that the school is a key space in the construction of individual identity, and thus, it is also one of the primary sites for the development of values that shape sexual identity and orientation. We believe that educational institutions cannot disregard their responsibility in the development of students’ sexual citizenship during childhood. Therefore, an educational policy grounded in the inclusion of sex–gender diversity is essential—one that respects human rights and the dignity of all students; recognises the significance of sexuality; opposes all forms of discrimination; combats prejudice and misinformation; and actively contributes to the construction of a society that is inclusive of sex–gender diversity.

This study underscores that the inclusion of sex–gender diversity is a task for the entire school community. Respect for diversity must be fostered across all areas of the school and at all educational stages. Schools should be safe spaces for the expression of multiple sexual orientations and gender identities. We must move towards a democratic society grounded in sexual citizenship, where the denial of human diversity has no place and where sex–gender freedom of expression is fully promoted. Schools must respect and make visible sexual rights as part of human rights; these rights must also be protected, and for that reason, no form of rejection or harassment of non-heteronormative students can be tolerated.

We advocate for the recognition of sexual rights within educational settings as a necessary condition for all students to live dignified lives, free from threats and discrimination. In this regard, we argue that it is urgent for all members of the educational community to engage in cooperative work that implements inclusive and preventative measures to jointly address sex–gender diversity. Our findings point to a lack of comprehensive intervention strategies in cases of discrimination against non-heteronormative students. Addressing this gap would help facilitate the broader transformation of both the educational institution and its surrounding context.

The study has also identified the pressing need to propose teacher training programmes, both at the initial and in-service stages, that address the issue of sex–gender diversity. This should be approached from an inclusive perspective, utilising innovative methodologies that provide holistic training and transcend gender binarism. One of the limitations of this research is the absence of student voices—those who are the primary subjects of LGBTIQ-phobic violence in schools. Their contributions could provide a clearer vision of a school free from such violence. This omission represents a limitation of the current study, which future research efforts should aim to address in order to continue advancing towards a truly inclusive school for all students.