The politics of age in sex and sexuality education for children and young people

Children’s and young people’s access to sex and sexuality education has frequently met with controversy and tension. The controversial nature of this education has intensified in recent years with increasing public debate and moral panic, often fuelled by the media, about what is perceived to be suitable knowledge for children and young people. Suitability is primarily based on perceptions of age appropriateness, perceived risks and cultural values related to childhood and sexuality. Age, despite often being considered a generic, numerical, and objective category, is pivotal to what is taught in sex and sexuality education, how it is taught, when it is taught, and who teaches it (Robinson, Smith, and Davies 2017).¹

Global resistance by conservative politicians to the inclusion of gender and sexuality diversity in sex and sexuality education, and other areas of school curricula, has resulted in strict regulations and censorship of these topics (Ferfolja and Ullman 2020). This opposition largely stems from ideas of gender and sexuality diversity in relation to children and young people as threatening the social order (Gray, Reimers, and Bengtsson 2021). Furthermore, the resulting censorship is related to unfounded fears associated with children’s and young people’s perceived vulnerability to ‘‘social contagion” and their being easily influenced by suggestions of gender fluidity (amongst other issues). Social contagion is considered to reflect the increased number of children and young people identifying as trans, non-binary or gender diverse (Turban et al. 2022).²

However, what is clear from young people’s narratives, as documented in numerous studies, is that their perspectives, experiences, and expressions of gender and sexuality, are at considerable odds with the traditional binary cisheteronormative discourses of gender and sexuality held by many adults (Bragg et al. 2018). In many instances, and across many cultures and settings, young people are challenging the ‘politics of age’ by actively ‘teaching’ parents, educators, and other adults, about the changing nature of gender and sexuality in contemporary times (Smith and Robinson 2024).

The articles in this special issue of Sex Education journal shed light on the ‘politics of age’ in sex and sexuality education in relation to four core areas: the political, historical and contemporary discourses shaping sex and sexuality education globally; how these discourses are often mobilised by a minority that is constituted through political avenues as the ‘majority’ voice; how teachers’ positioning in intersecting discourses of age, childhood and sexuality influences sex and sexuality education in schools – often to the detriment of children’s and young people’s education; and the importance of listening and incorporating children’s and young people’s voices, including those of gender and sexuality diverse children and young people, to develop a more comprehensive approach to sex and sexuality education. The contributing papers offer a range of perspectives, sometimes conflicting, but always offering complex and nuanced discussions of the ‘politics of age’ in sex and sexuality education.

The first paper in this special issue, entitled The Genderbread Person: mapping the social media debate about inclusive sexuality education’, and authored by Thalia Van Wichelen, Emma Verhoeven and Priscilla Hau, addresses the political dimensions of children’s and young people’s access to sex and sexuality education, as expressed through public social media discourses in Belgium. The authors show how some arguments against sex and sexuality education that include gender and sexuality diversity, use polarising rhetoric to dismiss this education as woke or indoctrination, while others invoke a more ‘subtle’ cis-hetero-normalisation or hetero-activism whereby arguments are linked to science, neutrality, reason and the ‘natural’ order of things (i.e. sex and gender). However, as the authors show, this kind of rhetoric does not go unchallenged. The recognition of diversity and of rights within the debate, offers resistance to the increasingly politically fuelled anti-genderism that has emerged in recent times.

In their paper ‘Navigating with Pre-teenage Children for Sexuality Education: the importance of children’s and young people’s perspectives’, Jukka Lehtonen, Eveliina Puutio, Suvi Pihkala and Tuija Huuki focus on experience in Finland and address the gap between, on the one hand, progressive legislation, rights-based policies and educational materials that promote equality and diversity and, on the other hand, the pervasive heteronormativity of primary schools and lack of adequate sexuality education for younger students. The analysis shows how the participating students navigate a complex social and cultural landscape including sex and sexuality in various forms. Thus, the paper’s central point is the importance of creating openness to children’s and young people’s perspectives and knowledge, and making this the starting point for more in-tune sex and sexuality education for pre-teenagers.

Developmental discourses of age appropriateness, in conjunction with inherent discourses of childhood innocence, are foundational to political debates about children and young people’s access to sex and sexuality education and associated censorship and regulation (Robinson 2013). Aoife Neary’s paper entitled ‘Intersections of Age and Agency as Trans and Gender Diverse Children Navigate Primary School: Listening to Children in (Re)Considering the Potential of Sexuality Education’ points out that the concept of age-appropriateness, along with the concept of childhood innocence, works at the centre of an arbitrary politics of age regarding sex and sexuality education. This has implications for how sexuality and gender diversity is addressed in sexuality education for younger ages and how the lives of LGBTQ+ children and families are (in)visualised in schools. Neary reinforces the importance of listening carefully to children’s voices, taking their understandings of gendered identities seriously, and including all children and families in sex and sexuality education in a meaningful way.

Parental views and values associated with childhood play an important role in children’s and young people’s access to comprehensive sex and sexuality education (Robinson, Smith, and Davies 2017). Tania Ferfolja, Kate Manlik and Jacqueline Ullman in their paper ‘Parents perspectives on gender and sexuality diversity inclusion in the K-12 curriculum: appropriate or not’, challenge the discourse that parents generally are against the inclusion of gender and sexuality diversity in children’s and young people’s sex and sexuality education. Findings from their Australia-based research with parents of primary school-aged children note that it is most frequently a minority of parents who are heard in anti-gender and sexuality diversity discourses. This minority of parents uses two intersecting and reinforcing discourses to support their position – first, that the inclusion of gender and sexuality diversity would be ‘confusing’ for children, and second they are ‘too immature’ and ‘too easily influenced’ – the social contagion theory. Ferfolja, Manlik and Ullman conclude that it is crucial to engage with resistant parents to counteract the myths associated with addressing gender and sexuality diversity with children, to show how these issues can be discussed in the curriculum in an age-appropriate manner, and to demonstrate the benefits of speaking about these issues for all children and young people.

The perspectives and values of educators also play a key role in children’s access to comprehensive sex and sexuality education. Olivia Bellas, Monique Mulholland, Nina Sivertsen, Emma Kemp, Ivanka Prichard, Stefania Velardo and Jessica Shipman in their paper entitled ‘Staff perceptions of support for early menarche in Australian primary schools: A qualitative study’ highlight the need for and importance of addressing menstruation with children, primarily resulting from the earlier onset of menarche in young girls. However, educators’ perspectives, heavily influenced by discourses of age appropriateness and childhood innocence, have undermined effective early efforts to meet young girls’ needs when dealing with menarche in the primary school environment, as well as girls’ and boys’ early education on the topic. As a result, the shame, stigma, and bullying that girls often experience regarding menstruation continues unabated.

Educators’ views on the intersections of age, gender, and sexuality also impact the ways in which they interact with children and young people, forming part of the hidden curriculum associated with sex and sexuality education. In research with primary school educators in Spain, Estel Malgosa, Bruna Alvarez and Diana Marre, point to the double standard associated with girls’ and boys’ active sexuality. Girls’ self-touching, for example, is viewed as problematic and deviant, whilst similar behaviours in boys’ is viewed as more acceptable. In their paper ‘Self-touching, genitals, pleasure and privacy: the governance of sexuality in primary schools in Spain’, the authors argue that the perspectives of teachers and other school professionals are implicit in how they talk about, respond to, discipline, and guide children’s sexuality and gender expression in school. The authors show how the pervasive discourse of ‘knowing leads to doing’ regarding sexuality hinders meaningful discussion and responses to students’ sexual expression, and how age and gender norms result in different types of surveillance of students.

Historical perspectives on policies and approaches to children’s sex and sexuality education provide useful insights into the changing discourses that shape socio-cultural narratives about age, childhood, and sexuality over time. Magdalena Hulth, Anne-Li Lindgren, and Anna Westberg Broström in their paper, ‘Child sexuality and interdependent agency in sexuality education texts for Swedish preschool practitioners 1969 − 2021: Three discourses on child sexual play’, offer a historical discursive analysis of education texts in Sweden, outlining the changing discourses associated with children’s sex and sexuality education in Sweden. The authors identify a shift from early liberal policies and approaches to the far more conservative and regulated practices present in contemporary times – the latter reflecting a global trend. The authors highlight the significant influence of child protection discourses since the 1970s on this trend. The changing nature of children’s agency is discussed in the light of the key emerging discourses in their review of texts. The authors call for a future discourse which allows children to be both protected and able to explore their sexuality without being constrained by pre-set norms concerning adult sexuality.

In the paper ‘Child sexual assault or curious play?’, Linda Palla and Jessica Eng examine perceptions of appropriate behaviour in children’s play in preschool as they are expressed on a Swedish online discussion forum. Two overarching opposing views are focused upon: the first, that children at the age of four cannot commit sexual assault; and the second, that they can. The analysis of the forum comments demonstrates how different discourses associated with age, gender, childhood, innocence, and awareness create tensions and contradictions in understandings of specific incidents between children. The authors argue for the importance of preschool professionals being able to balance both children’s right to play and explore, and their right to bodily integrity and protection in preschool settings.

This special issue includes two papers addressing young people and pornography, a volatile topic central to public debates about children’s and young people’s e-safety, and the impact of viewing pornography on young people’s understandings of intimate sexual relationships and sexual violence.

Despite pornography being largely considered as an ‘adult only’ practice, and as ‘morally risky’ and harmful to children and young people, young people’s voices are rarely included in the debates. Claire Meehan’s paper ‘“I wouldn’t want you talking to my kids!”: The politics of age when conducting research about porn with young people’, explores the impact of discourses of childhood, sex and sexual expression on efforts to access young people’s voices in New Zealand and their perceptions and experiences of pornography. Meehan describes the barriers encountered when seeking ethics approval and when recruiting schools and young people to participate in the research. Research has traditionally examined the ‘effects’ of pornography on young people, but Meehan points to a shift occurring, whereby explorations are focusing more on how young people use pornography to help understand their sexual subjectivity, sexuality, desire, and experiences.

Deevia Bhana’s paper entitled, ‘You see all these really beautiful people … and then, you look at yourself’: Bodies matter in teenage girls’ engagement with porn‘, argues that sex and sexuality education needs to critically address pornography with young people. Bhana examined adolescent girls’ perspectives and interactions with pornography in South Africa, and offers a critical discussion of the ways in which representations of female bodies in pornography negatively impact girls’ views about their own bodies. Both papers reinforce the need for further research on pornography and young people to gain a greater understanding of their perspectives and experiences.

The final paper in the collection by Rebecka Fingalsson, ‘The Teaching Body in Sexuality Education – Intersections of Age, Gender, and Sexuality’, provides a different reading of the ‘politics of age’, discussing how teachers’ genders are read and reacted to differently by students in Swedish sex and sexuality education classrooms. Older women, for example, may gain authority based on their perceived cisgender normative heterosexual life-experiences (e.g. through mothering). Younger female teachers, who can also refer to experiences of heteronormative cisgender ‘womanhood’, strategically use the smaller age gap between themselves and their students as a point of connection and site of authority when discussing sex, sexuality and relationships. Fingalsson points out that male teachers’ identities and authority are read very differently when teaching sex and sexuality education – they tend to embody a less neutral, and more political sexual subject position related to their representations of masculinity. Fingalsson concludes that female teachers’ use of their bodies and personal experiences as pedagogical resources in sex and sexuality education contributes to reinforcing dominant forms of femininity, ensuring schools remain heteronormatively protective spaces.

Conclusion

Children’s and young people’s access to education about sex, sexuality and relationships is both a social justice and children’s rights issue. When delivered in safe, open, supportive, and collaborative environments by well trained and supported educators and health experts, comprehensive sexuality education can have positive and life-long health and wellbeing benefits for young people (UNESCO 2018). As the contributions in this special issue show, in the current political climate internationally, children’s and young people’s sex, sexuality and relationships education cotinues to be highly regulated. The role that age plays in this censorship does not seem to be diminishing. On the contrary, the ‘protection’ of children and young people is continuously and loudly used as an argument to deny them this knowledge. This occurs despite children’s and young people’s demands for open and frank discussion about these issues that impact on their daily lives, and the beneficial evidence of this knowledge. This points to the necessity of continuing to challenge ideas about withholding knowledge as a form of protection, an assumption that in practice can lead to vulnerability. It is also crucial to pursue avenues through which rights-based and inclusive gender, sex, sexuality and relationships education can be co-designed with children and young people (Bengtsson and Bolander 2020). There is a critical need to continue to examine how age regimes create difficulties and boundaries for children, teachers, and parents, and work to limit the rights of children and young people.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflicts of interest were reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. The guest editorial team of the Global Childhoods: Sexuality, Gender and Age Network are (in alphabetical order): Helena Bergström, Stockholm University; Natalie Davet, Gothenburg University; Jessica Eng, Malmö University; Anette Hellman, Gothenburg University; Magdalena Hulth, Stockholm University; Kristine Hultberg Ingridz, Malmö University; Bogata Kardos, Gothenburg University; Anne-Li Lindgren, Stockholm University; Linda Palla, Malmö University; Eva Reimers, Gothenburg University; EJ Renold, Cardiff University; Lena Sotevik, Linköping University; Jeanette Sundhall, Gothenburg University; and Anna Westberg-Broström, Stockholm University.

2. We have chosen to use the broad term sex and sexuality education in this discussion so as to be inclusive of the range of terms used to describe this type of education, such as sex education, relationships and sex education, comprehensive sexuality education, holistic sex education.