LGBTQIA+ topics in physical education: an introduction

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this paper is to introduce the First Special Issue of our Double Special Edition on LGBTQIA+ Topics in Health, Wellbeing and Education. This special issue focuses on LGBTQIA+ Topics in Physical Education. We introduce the Special Issue by describing the sociopolitical backdrop around the world more broadly and specifically in relation to LGBTQIA+ rights. Afterwards, we reflect on the process of choosing Sport, Education and Society as the journal to publish the Special Edition. Moving forward, we briefly summarise the different streams of LGBTQIA+ research in physical education and how this special issue extends our knowledge in these areas. Lastly, we contend that this Special Issue adds a new stream of research on LGBTQIA+ Topics in Physical Education. We conclude the introduction by considering how future research may continue to capitalise on the momentum that LGBTQIA+ research has built in the field.

KEYWORDS:

• LGBTQ
• transgender
• sexuality
• sport
• sport pedagogy

An introduction

There is a deep collective sigh of relief that we (Dillon, Ryan and Sara) share as we finish ‘Part One’ of this Double Special Edition on LGBTQIA+ Topics in Health, Wellbeing and Education. This collective sigh is not just in celebration of completing this first Special Issue of excellent manuscripts (although there is much to celebrate!). The sigh is also a result of the increasing uncertainty, vulnerability and insecurity that our society has faced over the past two years. Much has changed for us (personally, professionally, socially) since the initial Call for Papers was published in January 2021. As a collective we have changed jobs, been promoted, moved over 10,000 miles, started projects, made friends and experienced life changes. Not to mention, the world was changing around us.

By January 2021, we were operating under the ‘new normal’ ushered in by a year of COVID restrictions (CDC, 2023). Since then, there have been tumultuous leadership changes in the United States (LeBlanc, 2021), the United Kingdom (Bowden et al., 2022), Afghanistan (Maizland, 2023) and Brazil (Rosati & Carvalho, 2022). The Russian military invaded Ukraine, resulting in thousands of deaths and millions of displaced civilians (Aloisi & Daniel, 2022). Conflict is on the rise in several countries, including Armenia, Azerbaijan, Iran, Yemen, Ethiopia, Congo, Haiti and Pakistan (International Crisis Group, 2023). President Xi Jinping was elected to an unprecedented third term in China. His first policy moves were to replace rival party leaders with allies, target Taiwan for reunification with China and publicly support the Russian invasion (Mitchell et al., 2022). These policy decisions – along with residual diplomatic disagreements – have led to increasing conflict between China and the USA.

The world we live in is changing at the speed of light. The introduction of AI (and the ethical issues it raises) has taken the world by storm. Dire economic crises have led to rising inflation rates, increased costs of living and exacerbated class inequalities. Civil and human rights are being rolled back and attacked around the world – particularly in relation to gender, ethnicity and sexuality (Council on Foreign Relations, 2022). This is evident in the reduction of access to women’s health care, the restriction of voting rights based on ethnicity/race and the rise of right-wing nationalist leaders and protests. Needless to say – we live in precarious times around the world (Standing, 2016).

Against this socio-political backdrop, one particular group of people who have become increasingly precaritised are those who identify as LGBTQIA+ . This is illustrated by the drastic and radical increase in attacks on LGBTQIA+ rights around the world. In Sara’s home state of Florida, the government has passed laws that prohibit teachers from discussing any topics related to gender identity and sexual orientation (Yang, 2023). This problem is not unique to Florida. As of July 2023, nearly 500 bills have been proposed at the state level to restrict the rights of LGBTQIA+ people in the USA (ACLU, 2023). Indeed, Ryan (Storr, 2023) recently argued that heteroactivism, the opposition to LGBTQIA+ equality (Nash & Browne, 2020), is a growing phenomenon across the world. He illustrated this by highlighting the rise in reported LGBTQIA+ hate crimes in the UK, the increase in harassment of LGBTQIA+ athletes in Australia and international professional organisations (e.g. FIFA) actively banning their members from publicly supporting LGBTQIA+ causes. Not only are we living in precarious socio-political times, but this heightened environment of fear is leading to the unfair and unjust targeting of LGBTQIA+ people. So, our collective sigh is not just about the relief of bringing this Special Issue to fruition. It is also a response to the uncertainty and vulnerability that comes with publishing such polemic and important research at a time when we (as editors and authors) are ‘at risk’ for producing such work.

Why two special issues?

As noted in the introduction, this collection of papers is ‘Part One’ of our Double Special Edition on LGBTQIA+ Topics in Health, Wellbeing and Education. When we (Dillon and Sara) first published the call for papers, we were overwhelmed by the positive response. In total, over 50 papers were submitted for consideration across a range of areas including mental health, physical education, sexuality education, sport, education and others. The call for papers was originally for a single special issue (8 manuscripts) on the overarching theme of ‘Health, Wellbeing and Education’.

Given the massive response and quality of submissions, we (Dillon and Sara) decided to publish a ‘Double Special Edition’. Most papers fell within two overarching themes: (a) LGBTQIA+ Topics in Physical Education (this special issue); and (b) LGBTQIA  Topics in Sport and Education (forthcoming). With an increase in workload, and an additional emphasis on sport, we (Dillon and Sara) knew we needed help. We approached Ryan and asked if he would join our team. After graciously accepting, together we have worked to assemble this Double Special Edition on LGBTQIA+ Topics in Health, Wellbeing and Education.

Choosing Sport, Education and Society

There were four steps we took in choosing the journal for our Special Edition. First, we wanted the special edition to stay in the core journals of our field (physical education). We considered these six journals to be the core: (a) Curriculum Studies in Health and Physical Education (CSHPE); (b) European Physical Education Review (EPER); (c) Journal of Teaching in Physical Education (JTPE); (d) Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy (PESP); (e) Quest; and (f) Sport, Education and Society (SES). From the six core journals, we prioritised those with a history of publishing LGBTQIA+ topics (step two). To do so, we used Dillon and Sara’s paper with colleagues (Landi et al., 2020) to narrow our list to three journals with histories of publishing LGBTQIA+ content: PESP (6 manuscripts), Quest (1 manuscript) and SES (4 manuscripts). We acknowledge these numbers are not accurate as of today but were fairly accurate at the time we published the initial ‘Call for Papers’.

The third step was to ensure our call for papers aligned with the journal’s aim. We wanted to open the special edition to a broad range of areas including but not limited to health education, physical education, sport studies, queer theory, health promotion, research methods, policy and education studies. As such, we chose to exclude PESP because of its specific focus on pedagogy in physical education and sport. Now we had two finalists: (a) Quest and (b) Sport, Education and Society. At this point, we examined the editorial boards (step four) to see if the membership comprised of scholars that published LGBTQIA+ content. We felt this was important because it shows a commitment to raising and empowering scholars that work with (or identify as) LGBTQIA+ in our field. From this, it was clear that Sport, Education and Society was best suited for our special edition.

We are proud Sport, Education and Society agreed to host the special edition. The editorial board has historically been comprised of scholars committed to equity and diversity. When it came to LGBTQIA+ research, seeing Gillian Clarke (1996, 2002) and Heather Sykes (1996, 2011) on the board was instrumental. Additionally, it is empowering to see others such as Lisette (Burrows, 1999, 2000), Jose (Devís-Devís et al., 2018a; Devís-Devís et al., 2018b), Katie (Fitzpatrick, 2013; Fitzpatrick & McGlashan, 2016), Håkan (Larsson et al., 2009, 2011), lisahunter (2019), and Andrew (Sparkes, 1997) on the editorial board. Feeling welcome to a journal is not only seeing publications in your area but also experts on the editorial board that can provide high quality feedback. Sport, Education and Society had both factors. Further, they are doubling down on their commitment to LGBTQIA+ research by adding members publishing in this area (Sara Flory, Oliver Hooper, Dillon Landi, Bonnie Pang). Thus, SES is the perfect place to build on LGBTQIA+ research in physical education. Further, we have enjoyed working with John Evans, Lisette Burrows and Jan Wright in their editor roles.

Streams of LGBTQIA+ research in physical education

Clarke (2006) previously claimed the lack of LGBTQIA+ research was ‘a sad indictment of much of the physical education profession’ (p. 730). We wish we could say this has changed in 17 years. Sadly, it has not. Dillon, Sara and colleagues’ systematic review (Landi et al., 2020) of LGBTQIA+ research in physical education showed that there is a ‘rising tide’ of research, but this is due to a few persistent scholars rather than a collective effort. Furthermore, we argued there are ethical issues and methodological considerations that researchers need to be aware of when working with LGBTQIA+ young people (Landi et al., 2020). Thus, whilst there is a ‘rising tide’ of LGBTQIA+ research in physical education, it is met with a ‘cruel optimism’ (Berlant, 2011), with authors often battling against problems that many in the field do not even believe exist.

Dillon (Landi, 2019a) previously outlined that LGBTQIA+ research in physical education has taken on four different streams: (1) Attitudes, Perceptions and Climate; (2) Lesbian and Gay Educators; (3) Physical Education Teacher Education; and (4) LGBTQIA+ Student Experiences. These four research streams, however, should not be thought of as distinct and isolated from the other. Rather, they are interconnected and intersecting. The identification of these streams was not meant to suggest discrete boundaries but rather to help clarify the range of LGBTQIA+ research that has been conducted. What follows is a brief (not exhaustive) summary of each stream and how this Special Issue adds to this topic.

Stream 1: Attitudes, Perceptions and Climate

Research around the world has explored the ‘climate’ of physical education for LGBTQIA+ people. Much of this research has investigated attitudes and perceptions in the field. For example, there have been several papers exploring the prevalence of homophobic behaviours and language in physical education (e.g. Gill et al., 2010; Morrow & Gill, 2003; Piedra et al., 2016). Despite these behaviours, there is little evidence to suggest that teachers are aware of or address these comments (Piedra et al., 2014; Sykes, 2011). Further, there is evidence of homophobic and prejudicial attitudes towards LGBTQIA+ people by teachers and other professionals in the field (Gill et al., 2006; Saraç, 2012b). It is therefore unsurprising that many LGBTQIA+ adults reported physical education as an unwelcoming place (Denison & Kitchen, 2015).

The article by Müller and Böhlke (2023b), which opens our Special Issue, adds to the research stream on Attitudes, Perceptions and Climate. Their study interviews 13 teachers from Germany to reflect on classroom interactions between LGBTQIA+ students and their classmates. Framing their work within research on ‘climate’, Müller and Böhlke (2023b) explore how physical educators perceive the ‘increasingly accepting’ (yet restrictive) nature of physical education for LGBTQIA+ young people. Their research examines how teachers’ perceptions of acceptance (and non-acceptance) are framed and how this might potentially affect LGBTQIA+ young people's experiences of physical education.

Stream 2: Experiences of LGBTQIA + Teachers

Despite the negative climate of physical education, there is a tradition of lesbian women entering the profession (Clarke, 1998; Griffin, 1998) and this has affected their identities in positive and negative ways (Sykes, 1996). For example, lesbian physical educators historically faced harassment, intimidation and bullying in schools (Clarke, 1995). This led to many teachers avoiding the discussion of their personal life with students and staff. This was so common it was referred to as ‘living a double life’ (Clarke, 1997), a ‘public-private divide’ (Sparkes, 1994) and ‘living in two worlds’ (Woods & Harbeck, 1992). Yet, many lesbian educators have found physical education as a place to resist homophobia and serve as role-models for young women (Bredemeir et al., 1999). With the exception of Sparkes (1997) autoethnographic fiction and Dillon’s (Landi, 2018) autoethnography, very little is known about gay male teachers’ experiences in physical education.

The article by Bancroft and Greenspan (2023), which continues our Special Issue, expands on research exploring the experiences of LGBTQIA+ physical educators. As noted above, the majority of this research has been conducted with lesbian physical educators (Clarke, 2006), with only two articles on gay/queer men’s experiences (Landi, 2018; Sparkes, 1997). Bancroft and Greenspan add to this research by conducting a case study exploring the experiences of a non-binary physical educator in England. By examining the facilitators and barriers of being a non-binary physical education teacher, Bancroft and Greenspan (2023) extend research in this area and the findings could be used to improve conditions for trans and non-binary physical education teachers. Notably, we also changed the category name to Experiences of LGBTQIA+ Teachers based on extending on Gay and Lesbian experiences!

Stream 3: Physical Education Teacher Education

Physical Education Teacher Education (PETE) programmes have also been studied in relation to sexuality. Flintoff (2000) found that men engaged in overly masculine behaviours, which created homophobic and sexist environments in PETE. Saraç and McCullick's (2017) case study showed that these environments had a negative impact on a gay man’s experience in a Turkish PETE programme. Furthermore, studies around the world have shown that PETE programmes have higher rates of homophobic attitudes compared to other university programmes (Gill et al., 2010; O’Brien et al., 2013; Saraç, 2012a). In response to this, some PETE programmes have actively sought to address LGBTQIA+ topics by teaching various forms of critical pedagogy (Chapman et al., 2003; Devís-Devís et al., 2018a; Pereira-García et al., 2022; Pérez-Samaniego et al., 2016). Yet, there is no research on the long-term sustainability of these critical pedagogy interventions or their impact on teaching. Interestingly, while PETE students are eager to learn how to teach LGBTQIA+ topics in physical education, PETE programmes are still unwelcoming and non-inclusive (McCaughey & Fletcher, 2020).

lisahunter et al. (2023) continued our Special Issue with their article based in an Australian teacher education course. In it, lisahunter et al. (2023) work with 50 + pre-service teachers to explore the role that health and physical education can play in raising awareness about intersex inclusion. The authors implemented a recently developed whole-school approach to teaching intersex awareness. As such, this work expands upon previous work that attempts to improve pre-service teachers’ abilities to teach about LGBTQIA+ topics in physical education. To our knowledge, they are the first authors to do so regarding intersex inclusivity. In their paper, they highlight the positives and negatives of using this framework, as well as provide critical reflections on how this work could be extended to include community organisations.

Stream 4: LGBTQIA+ Student Experiences

The next stream of research has explored the experiences of LGBTQIA+ students in physical education. Sykes (2011) book, Queer Bodies, was the first and most well-known research in this area. Sykes interviewed adults reflecting on their physical education experiences and found multiple ways in which curriculum, pedagogy and culture negatively impacted LGBTQIA+ people. Perhaps the most powerful quote came at the beginning of the book, where Sykes (2011) stated: ‘Lesbian, bi and gay sexualities were rarely constructed as legitimate, valued or positive in physical education’ (p. 20). McGlashan’s (2013) Masters thesis in Aotearoa New Zealand further explored the reflective experiences of gay men in physical education. She found that gay men were called faggots, chosen last in teams and harassed by students and teachers. Perhaps the silver lining of McGlashan’s work was that she found that peers and friends were the ones who protected these gay men from abuse.

More recently, Devís-Devís et al. (2018b) interviewed transgender adults about their reflective experiences of physical education. They found that the curriculum, pedagogy and physical structures (e.g. changing rooms) were based on gender segregation. This placed transgender and non-binary people in difficult situations because they had to ‘choose’ a gendered position. Despite this, some transgender men found physical education to be a space where they could openly express their masculinity, but the opposite was true for transgender women. Ultimately, as Caudwell (2014) found in sport, when transgender people subvert gender norms, they are subject to harassment, intimidation and bullying.

Nearly four years ago, Dillon (Landi, 2019a) completed his PhD thesis exploring 60 LGBTQIA+ young people’s experiences in physical education. To date, it has been the largest qualitative study on the topic. Dillon argued that physical education programmes that are informed by principles of health promotion and competition actively marginalise LGBTQIA+ young people (Landi, 2019a). This was because teachers promoted health and competition from a very narrow perspective (e.g. physical health, gendered, winning). When physical education lessons were grounded in health promotion and competition, they failed to include more holistic and embodied experiences of physical activity. LGBTQIA+ young people, on the other hand, approach health and physical activity as more inclusive with a range of social, mental, emotional, physical and spiritual dimensions. The overemphasis on competition and conforming to narrow health outcomes within physical education only placed additional stress on LGBTQIA+ young people's lives. As such the students felt like they did not learn anything relevant and one student even re-named the subject ‘All Physical, No Education’ (Landi, 2019a, p. 106). Thus, it was not shocking that 59 of the 60 young people stated they disliked physical education and ‘dropped’ the subject.

Dillon argued, however, that LGBTQIA+ students did learn knowledge in physical education – especially around gender, ethnicity/race, social class and ability. For example, the queer young men in his study claimed bodies and desire were taught through a colonial lens that reinforced white western standards of beauty (Landi, 2019b). Additionally, physical education practices such as fitness testing racialised, gendered and divided young people’s bodies into ‘risk’ categories (Safron & Landi, 2022). Thus, fitness testing practices not only had negative physical effects on LGBTQIA+ young people, but also affected them culturally, socially, emotionally and psychologically (Alfrey & Landi, 2022). Dillon’s work also illustrated that LGBTQIA+ young people did not passively accept these messages but rather actively resisted them in ways that teachers could not understand because of their lack of knowledge around queer culture. Thus, LGBTQIA+ students felt that their teachers often constructed them as ‘a problem’ because they did not ‘fit in’ (Landi, 2019a).

There are three (3) papers in our Special Issue that have added to the above research on the experiences of LGBTQIA+ people in physical education. The fourth article of the Special Issue comes from Spain, where Hortigüela-Alcala et al. (2023) analyse the experiences of seven (7) LGBTQIA+ young people in Spanish physical education. What is unique about this paper, however, is that they also include the young people’s families in the study. In doing so, they explore how stereotypes around gender and sexuality have the capacity to produce limitations for LGBTQIA+ young people and their experiences in physical education.

Lynch et al. (2023) also extend this research stream by using poetic inquiry, which is a growing trend in (physical) education research (Fitzpatrick & Fitzpatrick, 2021; Safron & Landi, 2022). Drawing on feminist poststructuralist theories, Lynch et al. (2023) argued their experiences in physical education have been influenced by their identities (gendered, sexualised, racialised). In doing so, the field of physical education often operates with, in Fitzpatrick and McGlashan's (2016) terms, a ‘straight pedagogy’ that produces traumatic experiences for LGBTQIA+ people. Lynch et al. (2023) go on to discuss how they resisted these traumatic experiences and turned to each other as a source of strength.

Herrick and Duncan’s (2023) systematic review on the experiences of LGBTQIA+ students in physical education crystallises the above points in relation to each other. Their review examined eight articles published in academic journals. They found that gendered practices, phobias (homo, trans) and classroom dynamics structure the experiences of LGBTQIA + people in physical education – leading to negative experiences. We found it useful to consider this review in relation to Müller and Böhlke's (2023a, Online First) systematic review published in Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy. We believe Herrick and Duncan (2023) build on the work of Müller and Böhlke (2023a, Online First) in insightful ways.

(New)#Stream 5: Teaching With, For and About LGBTQIA+  People

One of the most exciting developments in this Special Issue is the production of a new strand of research: (5) Teaching With, For and About LGBTQIA+ People in physical education. There are two articles in this Special Issue that have established research in this area. The first, by Drury et al. (2023), explored the challenges physical education teachers face when teaching LGBTQIA+ young people. This work is important because without knowing the barriers teachers face, we cannot improve pedagogy for LGBTQIA+ young people. Drury and colleagues explored topics such as teachers’ (lack of) knowledge about LGBTQIA+ content and provide recommendations on how to make PE more trans-inclusive. This work will prove to be foundational for the field.

To conclude this Special Issue, we turn to Spain. Fuentes-Miguel et al. (2023) publish what we (Dillon, Ryan and Sara) believe to be the single most important advancement in transgender research in physical education to date. The authors use the conceptual framing of trans generosity to work with a transgender secondary student and a local teacher to develop a queer-trans pedagogy that was enacted in physical education. In doing so, the authors break new ground in developing a pedagogical approach to physical education that teaches about, for and with transgender students. In our opinion, this manuscript could set a foundation for a queer and LGBTQIA+ pedagogy that can transform the field of physical education.

Conclusions (and beginnings)

We began this introduction by reflecting on some of the changes that have taken place in our world since the original call for papers of this Special Edition (January 2021). Importantly, one of these drastic changes has been around the precaritisation of LGBTQIA+ people in our world – especially in schools, physical activity and health settings. Despite these (often negative) changes in our socio-political environment, much progress is being made in LGBTQIA+ physical education research. We believe that this Special Issue not only adds to the ‘rising tide’ (Landi et al., 2020) of research but also ‘extends’ and ‘expands’ our knowledge in this area. The extension of knowledge was evident in the previously outlined four research streams by drawing on the insights of new populations (e.g. ethnicities, non-binary, parents), addressing new topics (e.g. intersex inclusion) as well as including diverse regions (e.g. Spain, Germany, UK, USA, Canada, Australia). In addition to this extension, researchers are breaking new ground by expanding the scope of LGBTQIA+ research by exploring trans, queer and intersex pedagogical frameworks in diverse settings.

All that said, ‘critical silences’ (Landi et al., 2020) still linger and require a collective effort moving forward. There is still very little to no research being published (at least in the Anglophone journals) from the majority of regions in the world including Africa, Asia, Central and South America, as well as Eastern Europe. Further, we believe that we still require a diversity in theories, methods and pedagogies that have been underexplored – especially from the aesthetic paradigm of research. Importantly, we believe that the inclusion of non-Western theories, populations and researchers will add greater diversity and advance the field of LGBTQIA+ studies in physical education. All in all, we are proud of the momentum being built in research on LGBTQIA + Topics in Physical Education. We just hope that physical education professionals can use this knowledge to change the world in positive ways to make it more inclusive for LGBTQIA+ people.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).