Diversity in sex and relationship education – limitations and possibilities in Swedish biology textbooks

ABSTRACT

Shortcomings in sex and relationship education (SRE) related to norms and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, asexuality (LGBTQIA) perspectives have been reported internationally and in Sweden. This paper reports on findings from a critical study of SRE content in Swedish biology textbooks for 13- to 16-year-old pupils, with the aim of revealing which sexual orientations and bodies are made visible or invisible in the texts. About 200 quotations were selected and analysed, quantitatively and qualitatively, with a focus on limitations and possibilities. The results show that LGBT content is visible in all SRE chapters. However, sexual orientation is often constructed as fixed. Furthermore, stereotypical gender binaries are reinforced via heteronormative assumptions regarding hormones, genitals and reproduction, focusing on differences instead of similarities, and thus limiting the‌ potential to widen non-binary perceptions of bodies and sexualities. Our quantitative analyses reveal that there are few, if any, queer, intersex, asexual or crip/disability representations. If gaps in young people’s knowledge regarding norms, intersex, asexuality, queer and crip sexualities are to be filled in order to promote equality and diversity, it is important to rethink the SRE content of Swedish biology textbooks.

KEYWORDS:

• Sexualities
• textbooks
• heteronormativity
• crip
• queer

Introduction

Around the world, there is increasing concern about the current shortcomings of sexuality education (Russell 2019; Sundaram and Sauntson 2016). Some of these concerns stem from lack of focus on LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) identities and experiences (Simovska et al. 2015), and on diverse bodies and sexual possibilities (Stelzl, Stairs, and Anstey 2018; Røthing 2017). Such shortcomings have been highlighted in a review of Swedish schools by The Swedish School Inspectorate (Skolinspektionen [The Swedish Schools Inspectorate] 2018), which shows that few schools include LGBT and/or queer perspectives as part of sex and relationship education (SRE).¹ In addition, few schools link SRE to values advanced by the Swedish curriculum never to discriminate ‘on the grounds of gender, ethnic affiliation, religion or other belief systems, transgender identity or its expression, sexual orientation, age, or functional impairment’ (Skolverket [The Swedish National Agency for Education] 2019, 5). It is not only that such forms of discrimination are forbidden; schools are obliged to take active steps to counter them (Skolverket [The Swedish National Agency for Education] 2019).

If these perspectives are not engaged with, there is an increased risk of harassment and discrimination for LGBT young people (Gegenfurtner and Gebhardt 2017). To prevent discrimination and advance the human rights of people with diverse bodies, genders and sexual orientations, it is of crucial importance to examine SRE critically. Textbooks are important in this respect, since they influence how teachers organise their teaching (Gerouki 2008). Textbooks also offer particular interpretations of the curriculum (Røthing and Svendsen 2011), and may act as ‘conveyors of the hidden curriculum’ (Táboas-Pais and Rey-Cao 2012, 311) that provide legitimacy and status to particular categories of people, since the relationships represented in them may be perceived as ‘natural and proper’ (Shaver, Bello, and Provenzo 2010).

The main elements of SRE in Sweden are taught in the grades 7–9 (13- to 16-year-olds) during the compulsory years of schooling. Although SRE content may be found in other school subjects, for example in civics, the topic is traditionally covered within biology. Commonly used Swedish biology textbooks for grades 7–9 therefore form the focus of this study. The aim of the research was to critically explore how sexual orientations and bodies are constructed in the SRE chapters of current biology textbooks. Research questions are (a) what sexual orientations and bodies are made visible, or invisible, in the texts; and (b) what does this say about current norms within SRE?

Themes from the literature

Earlier analyses of biology and sexuality textbooks have shown that the content is generally heteronormative, reinforcing gender binaries and male hegemony (Bazzul and Sykes 2011; Myerson et al. 2007; Stelzl, Stairs, and Anstey 2018). Some studies have paid attention to the representation of males and females in sexuality textbooks (Myerson et al. 2007; Stelzl, Stairs, and Anstey 2018) noting that female body parts are often contrasted with those of males, but not vice versa, thus othering the female and promoting the male as the norm. Also, having sex is often portrayed as penis-in-vagina penetration, promoting heteronormativity (Myerson et al. 2007; Røthing and Svendsen 2011; Røthing 2017).

Research has identified particular silences in textbooks concerning SRE. Historically same sex relationships are generally silenced in US biology textbooks (Snyder and Broadway 2004), unless associated with negative consequences such as AIDS. Negative constructions of same sex relationships prevail in South African Life Orientation textbooks (Wilmot and Naidoo 2014). Furthermore, a low proportion of LGBT content, and an absence of bisexual and transgender content, constructs heterosexuality as the norm (Wilmot and Naidoo 2014). In addition, the diversity of non-reproductive sexuality among animals is silenced (Bazzul and Sykes 2011), although research on animal life has identified an enormous variety of forms of sexuality (Ah-King 2013). Snyder and Broadway (2004) ask why such information is absent from textbooks, when it could promote the breaking of binary perceptions, challenge homophobia and thereby counteract discrimination. Intersex is also silenced or marginalised as a biological problem or a ‘disorder’, in US sexuality textbooks, and the biological reality of overlapping female-male distributions of bodily characteristics is not used to critique sexual dimorphism (Myerson et al. 2007)

Disability too was largely ignored in the US textbooks analysed by Shaver, Bello, and Provenzo (2010), who found only symbolic representations that provided little understanding of experiences and problems faced by disabled people. While research has been conducted on how students with intellectual disabilities (Löfgren-Mårtenson 2012, 2013) and students with mobility impairments (Bahner 2018) experience SRE, the SRE content of Swedish biology textbooks has been little studied from a crip perspective. Doing so might serve to challenge hegemonic ideals about sexuality and bodily standards, so that all sexualities and bodies benefit from such an approach (Bahner 2018).

The Nordic countries have for a long time been considered to have progressive gender equity policies and a positive attitude towards SRE in schools (Bengtsson and Bolander 2020; Honkasalo 2018; Kjaran 2017; Svendsen 2012). However, according to Kjaran (2017), there exists a gap between the ‘Nordic queer utopia’ and Icelandic schools and the education system, especially regarding LGBTQ visibility, where ‘different performances of gender and sexuality seem to disappear, whether in terms of textbooks, course content, teaching practices and school environment’ (Kjaran 2017, 4). In an overview of Norwegian sex education, Svendsen (2012) concluded that the political consensus about a free and equal sexuality is not visible in Norwegian textbooks. At a policy level heteronormativity has been transformed into homonormativity (Røthing and Svendsen 2011), through ‘gay and lesbian sexualities’ adoption of the institution of marriage’ (Svendsen 2012, 404). Although reference to same sex relationships is included in the curriculum, sex acts other than heterosexual reproductive copulation are missing from Norwegian biology textbooks (Svendsen 2012) and Norwegian grade 8–10 science textbooks (Røthing 2017). The opportunity to engage a diverse range of sexual practices is therefore missed.

In an analysis of Swedish biology textbooks from 1992 to 2007, heterosexuality has been found to be consistently constructed as the norm, since the reader is never positioned as same sex attracted, thus constructing homosexuality and same sex relationships as deviant (Bolander and Fejes 2015). Guided by earlier research, this study focuses therefore both on what is visible and what is ‘silent’ concerning sexual orientations and bodies in the Swedish biology textbooks examined.

Theory

The theoretical starting point for our analysis is Foucault’s theorisation of power as relational and interwoven with knowledge (Foucault 1977). As Butler later wrote, ‘knowledge and power are not finally separable but work together to establish a set of subtle and explicit criteria for thinking the world’ (Butler 2004, 215). Drawing on Foucault and Butler, we interpret sexuality and sexual identity as fluid, rather than fixed. This is in line with how queer theory seeks to destabilise sexuality categories and identities (Shlasko 2005; Sullivan 2003). Such an approach is productive in that it opens up possibilities to ‘read’ textbook content differently (Kumashiro 2000), challenging notions of heterosexuality as constituting the natural order of society (Bazzul and Sykes 2011) and ‘queering’ the text by pointing out silences or absences with respect to marginalised groups (Bazzul and Sykes 2011).

While queer theory questions normative assumptions about sexuality, crip theory challenges assumptions about disability (Sandahl 2003). Together, queer and crip perspectives seek to advance engagement with different sexualities and bodies, beyond mere tolerance (McRuer 2010). According to Weiss (2015), ‘compulsory able-bodiedness’ (McRuer 2010), in addition to sexism and racism, impoverishes the lived experience of the oppressor as well as the oppressed. Importantly, as de Lauretis (2000) reminds us, bodies and sexualities are experienced differently over time. The ableness of the body is temporary as well since trauma and illness can occur at any time during a lifetime. As a result, bodies are always in transition (Shildrick 2009).

In consequence, drawing on Loeser, Pini, and Crowley (2018), we argue for the need to develop more fluid visions and articulations of sexual pleasures beyond normative notions of sexual orientations and bodies. The dichotomous category of male or female represents a misunderstanding (Pasley 2020,2). Instead, sex in biological terms comprises multiple variations of external genitalia, internal gonads, hormones and chromosomes. According to Brömdal et al. (2017), more than 40 variations are subsumed the umbrella term intersex. Male and female are two figurations, or ‘simply two arrangements of an array of characteristics’ (Pasley 2020). In this study we view sameness, since ‘as human beings, we are more alike than different’ (Myerson et al. 2007, 99), together with intersex, as keys to challenge dominant cultural views concerning binary gender, body and norms (Brömdal et al. 2017), and as tools to open up for diversity in SRE.

Materials and methods

The current Swedish school curriculum for biology in grades 7–9 is not very detailed but rather provides general directions for the teacher. The Core Content that teaching should deal with consists of four areas: Nature and Society, Body and Health, Biology and World Views, and Biology, its Methods and Ways of Working. The area Body and Health consists of four parts, one of which is SRE. This concerns

Human sexuality and reproduction, and also questions concerning identity, gender equality, relationships, love and responsibility. Methods for preventing sexually transferable diseases and unwanted pregnancy at individual and global levels, and from a historical perspective. (Skolverket [The Swedish National Agency for Education] 2018, 170)

To help teachers interpret the curriculum, Skolverket (The Swedish National Agency for Education) provides support material which states that SRE should contribute to pupils ‘feeling safe in their own bodies and identities’ (Skolverket [The Swedish National Agency for Education] 2013, 68). It also says that norms, different sexualities and relationships, critical thinking and nuanced analysis of bodily ideals, should be included.

In this study, our focus is on how sexual orientation and bodies are presented in biology textbooks. During the selection process, we searched for the latest editions of Swedish biology textbooks (for grades 7–9). In libraries and online stores, we found six books from four publishing companies (Gleerups, Liber, Natur & Kultur, Sanoma Utbildning). Two pairs of books were almost identical, so to avoid the duplication of data, one book from each ‘pair’ was excluded.² In addition to the four books selected, we also found a newly produced biology textbook from a smaller publisher (Capensis förlag AB). We considered it valuable to add this ‘newcomer’ to the selection of earlier established books, and thus our final selection comprised five books (Table 1).

Table 1. Biology textbooks’ authors, publishers, year of publication and proportion of SRE chapters.

Textbook title	Full title	Author	Publisher	Publication date, edition; reprint	Chapter pages/total	SRE chapters /total
Capensis	Biologi 7–9 Del 2 Kropp och hälsa (vol. 2 of 3)	Martens, I. & Theng, L.	Falköping: Capensis förlag AB	2018, 1	26/452 = 5.7% (vols 1–3)	1/28  (vols 1–3)
Direkt	Biologi Direkt	Kukka, J. & Sundberg, C.J.	Stockholm: Sanoma utbildning	2012, 2; 5	36/412 = 8.7%	1/26
Makro	Biologi	Henriksson, A.	Malmö: Gleerup	2010, 1; 7	24/400 = 6%	1/14
Puls	Biologi: för grundskolans år 7–9	Andréasson, B.	Stockholm: Natur & kultur	2011, 4; 4	24/384 = 6.3%	1/21
Spektrum	Biologi Grundbok	Fabricius, S., Holm, F. & Nystrand, A.	Stockholm: Liber	2013, 4	30/444 = 6.8%	1/10

Note: The share of SRE content in the book published by Capensis (vol. 2) was calculated in relation to the total sum of pages and chapters in the multivolume set (vols 1–3).

The overall amount of SRE content ranged from 24 to 36 pages (6% to 9% of total content) in each book. This was reviewed in three steps. First, we analysed the chapters quantitatively in relation to their focus on each of the following issues: heterosexuality, LGBT, homosexuality, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender, in line with Wilmot's and Naidoo's (2014) analysis, to which we added the categories of queer, intersex, asexuality and crip. Content coverage was calculated using methodologies similar to those employed in earlier quantitative textbook analysis (Macgillivray and Jennings 2008; Wilmot and Naidoo 2014). This involved counting the total number of lines of text in each SRE chapter. In this study one line of text in each book corresponded to between 0.16% and 0.20% of the book’s total SRE content. The number of lines of text making reference to heterosexuality, the acronym LGBT, homosexuality, lesbian, gay, bisexuality, transgender, queer, intersex, asexuality and crip were then counted, and percentage coverage was then estimated. In addition, the sum of references made to homosexuality, lesbian, gay, bisexuality, transgender and LGBT, was calculated as ‘LGBT total’ to enable comparison with earlier studies.

Second, we explored how these different issues were presented in the content. Iterative readings of the SRE chapters were undertaken by the first author, inspired by thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke 2019; Terry et al. 2017). Quotes regarding heterosexuality, LGBT, homosexuality, lesbian, gay, bisexuality, transgender, queer, intersex, asexuality and crip were examined, paying attention to visibilities and invisibilities. Altogether, about 200 quotes were selected. Illustrations were included for analysis only where these were clearly connected to the content of a quote. Attention was given to whether or not the quotes narrowed understandings of an issue (i.e. silenced it), or widened it, so enhancing diversity. These results are presented as two themes, ‘visible content’ under the header Sexual orientation and transgender as standard content, and ‘missing content’ under Invisibilities, in the section that follows.

Third, we focused on how bodies were constructed in the content. This part of the analysis was partly guided by the empirical data, that is, the content of the textbooks. Hormones, puberty, genitals and their functions as well as having sex were major topics in all five textbooks. Thus, Bodies and bodily functions and The messy meanings of having sex became two major themes in our findings. At this stage in the analysis, we also focused in on power relations, to identify heteronormative and patriarchal tendencies in the texts (Table 2).

Table 2. Selected quotes and codes in terms of limitations and possibilities.

Quotes	Codes
A sperm fertilises an egg cell. (Capensis 110)	Power, sperm as active, egg as passive (Stereotypical limitation)
What does it mean that there are two sexes/genders? (Direkt 230)	Sexual dimorphism/binary gender (Limitation of gender)
Only one sperm is let in. (Makro 323)	The egg is given agency. (Possibility of challenging stereotypes in biology)
Slidkrans (vaginal corona) (Capensis 101, Direkt 228, Makro 308, Puls 281, Spektrum 379)	A new term instead of the use of mödomshinna (the hymen) (Possibility of challenging myths of virginity)
Man or woman? Is it important to know? (Spektrum 366)	Reinforcement of gender binary (Limitation) (Possibility of challenging binary gender)

Quotations regarding bodies that contained binary assumptions of gender, whereby female and male were viewed as dichotomies, were selected and coded as binary gender (Pasley 2020). We selected quotes in which sameness (Brömdal et al. 2017) was implicated, holding the potential to deconstruct binary gender. These were coded as ‘possibilities for change’, since they have the potential to open up discussion of bodily variation in general, and intersex in particular. We also investigated what or who was represented first within the text, male or the female, and what or who was defined as the norm. Power relations and characteristics, such as active or passive, were also included in the analysis. Finally, we translated selected quotes from Swedish to English.

Findings

Sexual orientation and transgender as standard content

A focus on sexual orientation and transgender is present in each of the five books (Table 3). Moreover, heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality are clearly defined in all chapters, and the acronym LGBT is present in most of the books (Direkt; Makro; Puls; Spektrum).

Table 3. Estimated percentage of content coverage in five Swedish biology textbooks.

Textbook	No of lines in SRE chapter	One line is equal to (%)	Hetero-sexual (%)	LGBT total (%)	‘LGBT’ abbreviation (%)	Homosexual (%)	Lesbian (%)	Gay (%)	Bisexual (%)	Transgender (%)	Queer (%)	Intersex (%)	Asexual (%)	Crip (%)
Capensis	594	0.17	10.6	4.0	–	2.7	–	0.2	0.5	1.3	–	–	0.5	–
Direkt	620	0.16	7.0	5.0	0.8	2.9	0.2	0.3	0.5	1.5	–	–	–	0.3
Makro	506	0.20	5.3	5.5	2.2	2.0	0.2	0.2	1.2	2.6	–	–	–	0.4
Puls	587	0.17	6.0	6.0	1.2	4.4	1.2	0.9	0.2	1.2	1.0	0.2	–	–
Spektrum	563	0.18	4.4	5.2	1.1	2.7	0.2	0.2	0.9	1.2	0.4	–	–	0.9

Note: LGBT total is the sum of the abbreviation ‘LGBT’, Homosexual, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender content.

The total quantity of LGBT content in each book ranges between 4.0% and 6.0%. This is higher than the 0.1% to 3.6% found by Wilmot and Naidoo (2014, 330) in South African Life Orientation textbooks, and is even higher than the 0.08% to 0.70% found by Macgillivray and Jennings (2008, 179) in US teacher education textbooks. In Swedish books heterosexuality covers 4.4% to 10.6% of the content, which is slightly higher than the LGBT total (4.0%–6.0%). However, we noted that sexual orientation was mostly presented as fixed (Capensis 97; Direkt 230; Makro 306), and as something that you ‘are’:

Most people are heterosexual and fall in love with someone of the opposite sex. But many fall in love with someone of the same sex. Then you are homosexual or gay. (Spektrum 370).

Same sex and bisexual relationships are mostly mentioned in a context of love. Same sex couples are also illustrated in content that is not directly related to sexuality (Makro 314). Pride festivals appear once, as places where people can meet, regardless of who they fall in love with, and a rainbow flag illustrates LGBTQ pride (Spektrum 370). Touching and rubbing each other’s sexual organs is described as common in same sex relations, and in all other couples as well (Capensis 113), thus enriching possible ways of having sex for all. The condom is recommended as good protection, including for men who have sex with men (Capensis 113).

Limitations and obstacles to same sex relationships, such as jokes by people lacking knowledge (Makro 306), are problematised. Lack of role models, and prejudice about effeminate gay men and masculine lesbians, are mentioned as further challenges (Makro 306). Important historical dates are listed in Puls (277) and Direkt (231), such as the decriminalisation of homosexuality in 1944 and the introduction of civil unions for same sex couples in 1995. Even if prejudice is less common nowadays in Sweden with same sex marriage legal (from 2009) and adoption legal (from 2003), it is signalled that some countries still punish same sex practices (Direkt 231; Spektrum 370). Sex between men is mentioned in a section on HIV infection (Direkt 249), thus connecting gay sex to something negative, as Snyder and Broadway (2004) also found in US biology textbooks.

Also mentioned is the involuntary absence of children, due to not living in a heterosexual relation (Puls 289). Illustrations of lesbian and gay marriages (Direkt 231; Capensis 98), can on one hand, be read as signs of enhanced diversity. On the other hand, they also show how same sex relationships become normalised when heterosexual norms are adopted, or turned into a form of homonormativity, as in the Norwegian biology textbooks analysed by Svendsen (2012). That families today can look different is exemplified by an illustration of two women with a child (Puls 277). Group relationships are only shown from countries outside Europe, through men living with multiple women in Africa and women living with multiple men in the Himalayas (Puls 276).

Transgender is present to some extent in all books, for example in reference to transvestites, persons who sometimes dress as the ‘opposite’ gender (Makro 307; Spektrum 370). Indeed, one of the chapters opens with an illustration of three beauty contest queens in red dresses, with the caption:

Man or woman? We all have both feminine and masculine sides. Is it important to know if it is a man or a woman? What do you think? (Spektrum 366)

No ready-made answers are provided here, so questions like these have the potential to encourage reflection and classroom discussions. A contrasting example can be found in the statement, ‘but men do not usually wear a dress’ (Capensis 97). Instead of enabling reflection, this reinforces stereotypical gender norms about clothing. Some books also mention ‘transsexuals’ who feel they have a sex different from their biological one; some go through transition surgery and/or take hormones (Direkt 230; Makro 307; Puls 273; Spektrum 370).

Invisibilities

Our analyses revealed that several concepts are missing or silenced in the books reviewed (Table 3). The word queer is rarely used and only defined in two books, as ‘not letting yourself be sorted into any sexual, or other category’ (Spektrum 370), and that queer persons ‘question stable identities, perceiving neither gender nor sexuality as given once and for all’ (Puls 277). However, in one book a whole page is devoted to the diverse ways of having sex among primates, elephants, giraffes and birds (Puls 275).

Intersex is also mostly silenced (Table 3), except for one explicit mention in a marginal note in one book, which challenges the male-female binary:

Girl or boy? […] In biological terms, you can actually be a little in between. It is called being intersexual. (Puls 273)

In the rest of the chapters, biological sex is constructed in terms of a fixed dichotomy, as in the statement that our genes determine whether we become female or male with different genitals (Direkt 230). The existence of fluid and/or non-binary genders, intersex from birth, and the fact that genitals have many features in common, are repeatedly neglected. Sameness between genitals, regardless of gender, is made visible only once in a mention that all foetuses look like girls at first, and only later differentiate in genital development (Capensis 96). The gradual differentiation of genitals is only implicit here, and the authors miss an opportunity to elaborate on the concept of intersex. Instead, a story titled ‘Brian became Brenda’ is presented in a text box. This story, also known as the story of David Reimers (Rolls 2019, 133–148), concerns how medical staff (or rather a famous, and later controversial, sex researcher, Dr John Money), decided that an infant whose penis had been injured during circumcision, should instead be turned into a girl through surgery. Brenda grew up feeling that something was wrong, and later made a transition to become male. To include this focus on lived experience can be interpreted as a good intention. However, this quite extraordinary story, in which Brian³ eventually commits suicide, seriously limits the basis for discussion about intersex and trans. The same book does mention, however, that ‘some persons experience themselves as gender neutral’ (Capensis 96), thus challenging binary gender.

Crip representations are also limited (Table 3) to brief assertions about everybody’s equal right to feel love, regardless of sexuality or disability (Direkt 226; Makro 306; Spektrum 380). There is, however, one mention of the possibility of using sex toys and devices to make sexual activities easier if the ability to engage in sexual activity is physically limited (Spektrum 380). But this quote is an example with potential and limitations. On the one hand, it could be interpreted as widening sexuality for all. On the other hand, it implies that disability is the reason for limited sexual activity, which ought to be challenged, since sexual activity can be limited for many reasons, regardless of (dis)ability.

Although it is stated that we are all different, the general lack of crip illustrations silences disability. Similarly, the option of not feeling a desire to have sex, defined as asexuality, is barely mentioned. Sex is equated with basic needs like food, drink and sleep (Direkt 226). Only once is it said that some people may feel little or no sexual desire at all (Capensis 95). This renders asexuality largely invisible, although it is considered a form of sexual orientation when included in the acronym LGBTQIA. Neglecting asexuality constructs sex and sexuality as compulsory and thus limits the possibility to say no to sex.

Bodies and bodily functions

Hormones, puberty, genitals and their functions are all central parts of SRE, but underlying binary gender assumptions persist in descriptions of them. For example, the hormone testosterone is often narrowly described as the male hormone, and likewise oestrogen as the female hormone (Makro 304; Spektrum 376). Stereotypical assumptions are sometimes challenged however by mentioning that women as well as men, have both oestrogen and testosterone, and that testosterone is linked to sexual desire in both men and women (Capensis 95).

There are also some exceptions to this binarism when puberty is described as a phenomenon for all, or in terms of changes that occur in similar ways. The fact that many boys tend to have temporary breast growth during puberty (Capensis 103), and that girls’ voices also deepen (Spektrum 376), are examples given in the books. Similarities like these have the potential tochallenge the gender binary. Pain and nausea are presented as associated with menstruation, vaginal intercourse, contraceptive pills, pregnancy, childbirth and vulvodynia – and are thus gendered. Genital disorders are exemplified by female bacterial vaginosis and vaginal yeast infection, followed by scabies and pubic lice (Puls 293), without specifying that any gender can suffer the two latter infestations.

As highlighted in the study by Myerson et al. (2007), female organs are usually described in relation to male organs, constructing the male as the norm:

The labia and the clitoris have spongy tissue just like the man’s penis and glans. (Direkt 217)

The clitoris is the woman’s equivalent to the glans penis. (Capensis 101)

Only male ejaculation is mentioned in connection with orgasm (Makro 315). The existence of female ejaculation is silenced in all five books. In a text box with facts about boy's ejaculation during sleep, it is said that this ‘is not because guys always dream about sex’ (Capensis 105), reinforcing the idea that men think about sex more often than women do, thereby stereotyping male and female sexuality.

In all of the texts, the penis is constructed as active and the vagina as passive: the penis ‘gets hard to make it easier to penetrate during intercourse’ (Makro 313), and lubrication of the female genitals makes it ‘easier for the penis to penetrate the vagina’ (Makro 308). This description of lubrication as a fluid that decreases friction and protects the mucous membranes during penetrative sex risks restricting the vagina to means to endure penetrative sex, overlooking lubrication as an indicator of pleasure for the vagina bearer. In contrast to the absence of mention of the clitoris in Norwegian textbooks (Røthing 2017), all five Swedish biology books include reference to it. The clitoris is described as sensitive to sexual touch (Direkt 217; Spektrum 375). However, the larger anatomy and actual size of the clitoris is neglected. The inner parts of the clitoris are mentioned in only two books (Makro 309; Puls 281) and only one book explains that the clitoris becomes larger during sexual arousal (Puls 281).

Several books mention how the hymen as a sign of virginity may be considered a myth (myten om mödomshinnan) (Direkt 228; Puls 281; Spektrum 379). Attempts have been made in Sweden to find a more appropriate term for the hymen, and the word slidkrans (vaginal corona) has been introduced as an alternative concept (Christianson andEriksson, 2014;Milles et al. 2018). All five of the textbooks use this new term, describing slidkrans (vaginal corona) as elastic and stretchable (Makro 308).

When girls have intercourse for the first time, the soft vaginal corona is stretched out when the penis is inserted in the vagina. (Spektrum 379)

However, the fact that the elasticity of the vagina works both ways, and is not stretched out permanently by penetrative intercourse, is missing. Myths about virginity and the hymen are further dispelled by presenting that not all vaginal coronas look the same and appearance cannot provide evidence of intercourse (Spektrum 379).

Stereotypical notions are also imposed on the egg and the sperm reproducing the image of men as active and women as passive. Sperm are also described in grandiose terms:

The testicles are indeed effective sperm factories. They can produce around 50 000 new sperm each minute! (Makro 312)

The task of male genitals is said to be the transfer of sperm to a female (Capensis 100). The first sperm to arrive at the egg is frequently portrayed as a winner:

Congratulations! You won the swimming competition. The sperm with your genes reached the egg first. (Spektrum 388)

The sperm is thus once more constructed as the active part that fertilises the egg cell (Makro 323; Capensis 110) by penetrating it (Makro 323; Direkt 232; Spektrum 388). It is moreover portrayed here as the sole provider of ‘your genes’, rather than just half of your DNA. Stereotypical perceptions of reproduction thus stubbornly persist, despite such misconceptions having been dismissed long ago (Martin 1991). Importantly, Puls (283) provides an alternative definition of fertilisation, describing how the nucleus of the egg unites with that of the sperm. The ‘power’ of sperm is de-emphasised here since within the egg ‘the cell membrane is transformed so that […] only one sperm is let in’ (Makro 323). Spektrum (388) also states that the egg actively produces substances to help sperm find their way.

The messy meanings of having sex

What is meant by ‘having sex’ is not consistently described across the SRE chapters. Most often the words ‘having sex’ are used interchangeably with the word intercourse, which shows how powerful the norm is. One example of this appears in the sub-title ‘Intercourse – to have sex’ (Direkt 227), which clearly equates sex with intercourse. Another example appears in the statement ‘it hurts if you try to have sex before it [the vagina] is lubricated enough’ (Capensis 105), which indicates that ‘sex’ means vaginal penetration, a heteronormative construction.

Significantly, penis-in-vagina penetration is the only sex act illustrated in detail, mostly with a male body on top of a female body. Only once is a cross-sectional picture of heterosexual intercourse portrayed with the two bodies standing up (Puls 283), thus in equal power positions. Foreplay is repeatedly described as preparation for having sex (Direkt 227; Spektrum 378), thereby suggesting that activities during foreplay are not (real) sex at all. The statement that the ‘penis becomes erect and he can have sex’ (Direkt 227), implies that (real) sexual activities cannot take place without male erection.

There are a few more nuanced verbal descriptions of having sex such as: ‘[T]o have sex can mean different things’, which is followed by several different examples of having sex, such as kissing, making out and petting (Direkt 227), and other kinds of intimate play (Makro 314). By describing petting (Capensis 105; Direkt 227; Spektrum 378), acts other than penis-in-vagina sex become possible. All the books mention masturbation, or sex with oneself, as positive.

The person with a penis is not always stereotypically constructed as the active one during intercourse; in ‘the penis is inserted into the vagina’ (Capensis 104), the choice of the word inserting, instead of penetrating, opens up possibilities with respect to who actually inserts the penis. Another example of a less heteronormative description is that ‘the penis must be erect to enable the insertion of the penis’ (Direkt 219), not specifying where the penis is inserted. In one book offering a historical context to the notion of having sex, two pages are devoted to explaining that ‘having sex’ in 16th-century Sweden meant only vaginal penetration within marriage (Puls 277). The text goes on to say that ‘sex means different things for different people and varies from couple to couple’ (Puls 278), which suggests different possible meanings of ‘sex’. Through the assumption that relationships comprise two monogamous partners, mononormativity also prevails.

Discussion

Looking back on SRE historically, Swedish biology textbooks have come a long way; nowadays, same sex relationships, bisexuality and trans people are included as standard content. Another stepping stone is the introduction of the term vaginal corona, used in all the books in this study. Furthermore, the normalisation of having sex with oneself is refreshing and far from the taboo about masturbation that prevailed in the past.

However, there remains plenty of room for improvement. Persistent binary gender assumptions in descriptions of puberty, genitalia and their functions need to be deconstructed so to recognise diversity. Here, sameness between human bodies in foetal development and puberty offers one key with which to deconstruct essentialist assumptions of binary gender. It also has the potential to open up space for intersex and the idea that we all are ‘part of bodily diversity’ (Pasley 2020, 9). Fixed notions of sexual orientation as identity need to be reformulated. An alternative fluid view was to be found in one of the textbooks analysed, where sexuality was described as a spectrum on which ‘we can be in different places over a lifetime’ (Spektrum 370).

Drawing parallels between the need for sex and the need for food, drink and sleep constructs a compulsory sexuality that marginalises asexuality. Social expectations that everyone should be sexual are problematic, especially for persons who lack sexual desire. For asexual people with autism, for whom social interaction can pose an extra challenge, there is an even larger risk of desireless consent to sexual activity (Kim 2011). Regarding the right to have feelings, however, it is essential to be cautious; the conflation of everybody’s ‘right to feel love’ (Makro 306; Spektrum 380) with ‘right to sexual relations’ (Direkt 226) can be misleading. The latter formulation can lead to demands for unwanted sex and even violence.

The material contained within the textbooks is in many cases strongly heteronormative in character. There is a need for a focus on sexual practices other than penetrative intercourse. In line with Svendsen (2012) and Røthing (2017), we call for enhanced information about and visibility of sex acts other than those associated with heterosexual relations. Mononormativity dominates through love relations in couples and the marginalisation of polyamorous group relationships needs to be challenged by examples closer to everyday life. Textbooks can be used in different ways, and it is crucial here to critically ask what is missing, and what can be added, for example, by queering the content. This can be done by asking questions rather than providing answers (Shlasko 2005). The ‘Brian became Brenda’ story, or other life experience stories, can raise questions for discussion: is it right or wrong to conduct genital surgery on children, why, for whom? Who or what is to determine a child’s future regarding genitals or gender, doctors, parents, societal norms, the child, and if so, when?

Throughout this study we tried to adopt a crip perspective, finding that able-bodiedness dominates the representation of sex and relationships in all of the textbooks examined, while disability is marginalised. This is not surprising, since unusual bodies often evoke fear and avoidance (Shildrick 2009). However, to recognise and enhance diverse possibilities, bodily difference needs to be more fully integrated into our worldview, and thus, made visible in textbooks. The mention in one text of the possibility of using sex toys and devices to enable sexual activities is promising, regardless of (in-) or (dis)ability. We also agree with Kjaran (2017) about the need for enhanced visibility of different performances of gender and sexuality, and bodies as well.

Conclusion

Pupils encounter different norms in school, and it is important for schools to provide a safe space for pupils as well as a support for learning. One aspect of learning involves learning materials such as the biology textbooks in this study. While some persistent heteronormative assumptions in Swedish biology textbooks need alternative formulations, other silences ‘scream’ for more radical inclusion, such as a focus on asexuality and the representation of crip bodies. Revisiting assumptions about binary sex will open up possibilities for the inclusion of intersex and the deconstruction of stereotypical gender assumptions. The ways in which diverse animal sexuality is exemplified in one of the reviewed books demonstrates that it is possible to challenge norms around sexuality by queering biology. Cripping education too has the potential to widen perceptions of what bodies are, and can do. A widening of SRE content via a more nuanced engagement with pleasure is important, both to counteract discrimination and to promote equal rights for the benefit of all.

Acknowledgments

We thank Ann Phoenix for valuable and useful comments on earlier versions of the manuscript. We also thank the anonymous reviewers and the editor for their helpful feedback.

Disclosure statement

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

Correction Statement

This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Notes

1 450 randomly selected Swedish schools participated in the survey (Skolinspektionen 2018).

2 Excluded were Fabricius, S., F. Holm, and A. Nystrand. (2013). Biologi Light. 2nd ed. Stockholm: Liber (which is similar to Spektrum), and Henriksson, A. 2015. Titano biologi. 2nd ed. Malmö: Gleerups Utbildning (similar to Makro).

3 We have kept the name Brian used in the textbook (Capensis 96), even though his original name was Bruce, then Brenda, and finally David. However, his twin brother was named Brian.