Combating homophobia, lesbophobia, biphobia and transphobia: A liberating and subversive educational alternative for desires

Abstract

The repression of human sexuality began anew in the twentieth century with a strengthening of patriarchal conceptions that pathologised sexual preferences, such as homosexuality, lesbianism and bisexuality, and medicalised transsexuality. Our educational approaches based on action research have reduced violence and empowered teenagers – girls and boys – and groups of teachers in different countries of the European Union. The diversification of assessment tools has resulted in an improved evaluation of processes and results. As a result, a high percentage of violence has been eliminated, accompanied by a scaling up of prevention and greater respect for sexual diversity. Critical-emancipatory action research is a viable alternative, as is the empowerment of men, not only of women.

Education; Psychology; Homophobia; Lesbophobia; Transphobia; Attitudes; Educational programmes

Dreaming is the soul's way of never failing to apprehend what would pass us by if we stopped dreaming that what does not exist is true (Salinas, 2007)

My dear mother has declared categorically that she is not heterosexual. When I explain the difference between that term and the terms lesbianism and homosexuality, she then asks why I use “such odd words”. In a discussion panel entitled “What my mother thinks of men “I insisted on explaining to her that being heterosexual simply meant that you liked men – being, as she was, a woman – and that was all that it meant. Her response: “Again, I am not that because I do not like men. I only ever liked your father.” I continued to insist: what are you then? I am normal, she replied with absolute clarity. From her intuitive intelligence, my dear mother was defining queer theory – defying classification – and she would never have read Judith Butler because she would think her intolerable, or Simon LeVay, who also claims to be normal. My mother said no to labels as they can be discriminatory. We know perfectly that “The mobilization of identity categories for the purpose of politicization always remain threatened by the prospect of identity becoming an instrument of the power one opposes. That is no reason not to use, and be used, by identity” (Butler, 1999, XXVIII).

1. Introduction

The first decade of the twenty-first century witnessed the most dangerous and brutal repression of sexuality ever seen, a repression that began in the 1980s: the return of phallocracy as a form of power and violence. A renewed alliance between biomedicine, androcentric psychology, and Catholic morality, in a bitter conflict directed at collectives and organised groups, and against people struggling with the unwavering will and perseverance for the conquest of sexual liberties and gender equality. An ideological and political confrontation once again took place between the most ultraconservative groups and the collectives that defend the liberties and rights of citizens. The historical precursors – in Western culture – were outlined by Foucault (2005): “it seems that we can distinguish four great strategic unities which, beginning in the eighteenth century, formed specific mechanisms of knowledge and power centring on sex” (p.109) [...] “hysterisation of the women's bodies, [...] pedagogisation of children's sex, […] socialisation of procreative behaviour” (p.110) [...] and “psychiatrisation of perverse pleasure” that result in four privileged objectives of knowledge: “the hysterical woman, the masturbating child, the Malthusian couple and the perverse adult” (p.111). An unprecedented alliance was forged between medical discourse, moralists and theologians, who were then to be joined by pedagogues.

The immediate consequences of this are the creation of political, economic, and social systems to control the body as one more instrument at the service of capitalism and patriarchal culture.“People are trapped in a system of subjection in which need is also a meticulously prepared, calculated and used political instrument; the body becomes a useful force only if is both a productive body and a subjugated body” (Foucault, 1979, p.15).

This repression on three fronts has resumed its simplification of the body of the man by reducing it to the penis, creating and recreating new forms of phallocentrism, of the power of the penis. Androcentric medicine and psychology must be devoted to its care: being erect when the occasion requires; better white than the black of an Australian Aboriginal, or small like that of an Asian man (Martino and Pallotta-Chiarolli, 2006). Consequently, a highly repressive and restrictive conception is emerging of sexuality at the service of patriarchal male groups that oppress women and other male collectives (Connell, 1997a). Likewise, gender bipolarity has given rise to new debates. In recent years, queer theory has alerted us to the use of behaviour classification as a form of oppression and exclusion (Butler, 2007; Puleo, 2011).

1.1. Homophobia, lesbophobia, transphobia and biphobia in schools, and patriarchy

In order to understand, in a social, political and cultural sense, the meaning and relevance for people of talking about homophobia, lesbophobia, transphobia and biphobia in everyday life, it is first necessary to explain the mechanics of the term patriarchy as well as its connection with power, misogyny and homophobia. The word patriarchy has its origins in the words pater (father) and archein (begin, rule). In ancient Greek, primacy in time and authority are one and the same (Delphy, 2002).

Patriarchy [...] is based on the supremacy of men and the masculine over the inferiorisation of women and the feminine. It is also an order of domination of some men over others and of alienation among women. […] The resulting world is asymmetrical, unequal and alienating, androcentric, misogynist and homophobic (Lagarde, 1994, p.397).

If knowledge is power -said Millett (1969, p.42), power is also knowledge, and a large factor in their subordinate position in the fairly systematic ignorance patriarchy imposes upon women. We can say the same when we speak of sexual diversity instead of hegemonic heterosexuality. In his definition of feminism Millett (1969, p.65) asserts that it is a system of political-economic, and social equality between the sexes -which implies-a sexual revolution in fact (p.74) (MacKinon, 2016, p. 13) The control of knowledge means the control of sexuality and the exclusion or invisibility (as gender bias) of sexual diversity and the possibility of choice and freedom.

The Patriarchal organization includes gender as a way of dividing people and perpetuating oppression. In the same way that patriarchy reinforces heterosexuality as an exclusionary hegemonic model and, therefore, can prevent autonomy in making decisions about our sexual preference.

It is worth taking a deeper look at three constructs linked to patriarchy: power, misogyny and homophobia (lesbophobia, transphobia and biphobia).

The critique of the heterocentric, patriarchal, and white hegemonic model is more alive than ever.

Within the normative spheres of academia rooted in whiteness intersecting with patriarchy, heteronormativity, capitalism, and English hegemony, we recognize the political choices made in our careers. We are both tenure-track professors at public universities doing work that is largely marginalized in our field. We are contingently connected to the shared political identity of “Asian” and “Asian American” in this country historically erasing the multiplicity of its racialized label; we prefer people of color, LGBTQ spaces to other gay spaces because of the shared experiences with culture and race, as well as reducing encounters with the larger White gay community (where we have each experienced various kinds of marginalization and exotification). We research communicative practices concerning queers of color. We refuse the boundaries of the discipline: it can be moved that must be shifted and expanded to include people like us (Spieldenner and Eguchi, 2019, p.143)

Finally, with the reappearance of right-wing and right-wing political parties in the world, we think it is appropriate to cite as an obligatory reference the relationship between liberalism and patriarchy. There has been an intolerance towards what they call Gender Ideology because they consider that it destroys the traditional heterosexual family (the only legitimate form), is the case of countries such as Spain, Poland, Brazil, or the United States of America among others. As an example, and in a suggestive theoretical work, How Fascim Works, Stanley (2018) raises the relationship between capitalism, fascism, and patriarchy.

The patriarchal family is one ideal that fascist politicians intend to create in society -or return to, as they claim. The patriarchal family is always represented as a central part of the nation's traditions, diminished, even recently, by the advent of liberalism and cosmopolitanism. But why is patriarchy so strategically central to fascist politics?

In a fascist society, the leader of the nation is analogous to the father in the traditional patriarchal family (Stanley, 2018 p.6)

The second key concept is misogyny, which in our analysisis a constituent element of society and culture, understood as hatred towards women, the inferiorisation of women, the consideration of the feminine as abject. Misogyny is exercised by some male collectives (not in the systemic sense of the term) as well as by female collectives that reproduce androcentric thinking.

Finally, homophobia, understood as fear, cowardice and the capacity to be and construct myself as the other: in short, to learn to live freely. Homophobic people do not express a prejudice (androcentric concept); they express their violence, because their desire is to be like another person and homophobia becomes an indelible personal justification and a mechanism to defend themselves against the unacceptable –and undeniable– reality of their own desires.

The dialectic relationship between patriarchy and capitalism has not lost its relevance: neoliberalism, globalisation and banking terrorism are proof of this. Let us remember how Millett (1969) re-established a clear distinction between the two concepts to explain the oppression of women. Likewise, societies with Marxist economic models – in particular, those that emerged in the 1960s, such as Cuba, Vietnam, Cambodia, Mozambique and Angola – or, for example, the so-called Arab path to socialism in countries such as South Yemen, Afghanistan, Libya and Algeria (Bell, 1984), also confirm the solidity and contemporaneity of patriarchy. “Technologies of the self” (Martino and Pallotta-Chiarolli, 2006, p.21) imply a conceptualisation of “acceptable and desirable forms of heteronormative masculinity”. From an androcentric perspective, however, the effects of “compulsory heterosexuality” (Rich, 1980) are of particular interest, and “how the requirements for boys to display themselves as appropriately heterosexual impacts on the way they fashion and police their masculinities. The role that homophobiaplays as a specific technique of self-regulation and surveillanceof other boys, therefore, is understood as linked to a particular ‘technology of the self’” (Martino and Pallotta-Chiarolli, 2006, p. 22).

From our point of view homophobia may no longer be confused or simplified as hatred of the feminine and of homosexual, lesbian and transgender people. It has been resignified, becoming the construction of a desirable but impossible subjective image and thus “my violence” will prevent you from expressing what I cannot be. Homophobia, in this way, represses the conflict but cannot eliminate it, hence the need for violence towards other people. Let us remember that women reproduce a homophobic thought when they share this androcentric perspective that they have assumed as their own way of thinking.

We were surprised by the story of Marguerite Duras, who, though not the most homophobic woman of letters, stated: “I see in the apparent sweetness of homosexuals a provocation to violence” (Tin, 2012, p.164). But it seems that she was punished by the irony of life when she fell in love with a homosexual man, Yann Andrea Steiner, in 1980.

1.2. From sin to illness: one round trip

The relevance of this simple, but profound, distinction – between sexism and androcentrism – is understandable if to explain transphobia we resort to studies on sissy boys, one of the cruelest terms ever coined, which sees the transgender person as suffering from a psychological disorder. To understand some of the assessments of and departures from the politics of repression, let us recall the relevance of the studies of Money (1955), who coined the concept of gender, and Stöller (1968), who posed the idea of gender identity, both of which were perfectly well known by what has been termed the second wave of feminism (Kate Millett is the first feminist author to mention them, in her 1969 work, Sexual Politics).

Let us briefly recall how in the history of Western sexuality the consideration of sex as a sin (Tissot, in L'Onanisme, published in 1760, classed as a disease what the Catholic Church considered to be a sin) evolved towards pathology in a paradigmatic work, Psychopathia Sexualis, writtenby the Russian physician Heinrich Kaan in 1843, in which the sins of the flesh were reinterpreted as diseases of the mind; the medicalisation of sin (Haeberle, 2002). A later work, written by Richard Von Krafft-Ebing in 1886, wasalso published under the same title, Psychopatia Sexualis (Hoenig, 1977). Today, various religious groups have taken up this idea of sin or aberration or reject any marriage that is not heterosexual.

1.3. The struggle for the freedoms of sexual cultures

The American Psychiatric Association, an androcentric and homophobic body, removed homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses in 1973, but it added “Gender Identity Disorder in Childhood”, or “The Sissy Boy Syndrome”, in its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual published in 1980, as pointed out by Thompson (2015), indicating that, in keeping with Green's research (1987), these boys essentially grow up as homosexuals or transsexuals. The disease of psychiatry and psychology consists in confusing gender identity with sexual preference; and publications (Green et al., 1985) in psychiatry and mental illness journals attest to this (Green, 1968, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1976). Again, reference is being made to the supposed existence of universal developmental processes for sexuality, rightly criticised by New York psychiatrist Leonore Tiefer (1996). The logic that is not questioned is heterocentrism, even though we know that heterosexuality is not accepted by all cultures as a unique expression of desires.

As was pointed in a paper, titled, significantly, Little Boys Who Behave as Girls (Green, 1970, p.15): “Essentially, psychological theories about male homosexuality have consisted of excessive closeness between mother and son, a closeness infused with seductiveness and hostility, and a distant or hostile relationship between father and son”. The same author also contended that boys who, from a young age, prefer clothes, games, toys, and companionship of girls will be homosexuals, transsexuals, and transvestites in adulthood (Green, 1976).

The feminism that considers transsexuality as something politically reactionary posits, in the controversial book The Transsexual Empire (Raymond, 1994, p.16), that transsexuality “is basically a social problem whose cause cannot be explained except in relation to the sex roles and identities that a patriarchal society generates”. From different radical and critical perspectives, desensitising concepts have emerged, such as “gender fucking”, “gender blur”, “gender bending” or “gender blending”, as examples of the revolutionary political force (Soley-Beltrán, 2012).

The key question is whether transsexuality is or is not a pathology, as conceptualised by medicine and psychology. From different perspectives we may question this idea of disease, coined by repressive and heteropatriarchal cultures, as illustrated by the various contributions of philosophy and anthropology.

The space of configuration of the disease and the space of localisation of the illness in the body have been superimposed, in medical experience, for only a short period of time: the period that coincides with nineteenth-century medicine and the privileges accorded to pathological anatomy (Foucault, 2009, p.17).

Although it is true that Levay (1991) published an article in the journal Science justifying the existence of a difference in the hypothalamus between heterosexuals and homosexuals, later, in The Sexual Brain (1995), he recanted the claims of his earlier publication, even rejecting the attraction that psychoanalysis had held for him, and stated categorically that:

[...] I began to have serious doubts. First, as I got to know large numbers of gay men and lesbian women, it became harder and harder to see them, or myself, as the products of defective parenting; we just seemed too normal (LeVay, 1995, p.15).

“The variation in the ethnographic record suggests that human sexuality is plastic, not subject to rigid genetic or hormonal pattering, but determined by the learning and symbolic areas of the brain” Cucchiari (1981, p. 38). “The libido hormone is the same for men and women and is androgen. Psychosexually, the androgenic function is limited to partial regulation of the intensity and frequency of sexual desire and arousal, but not the cognitional patterns of arousal” (Money, 1965, p.14). Let us recall the relatively recent invention of the terms heterosexual and homosexual by the Austro-Hungarian writer Karoly Maria Kertbeny in 1868, who first used the words in a letter addressed to Karl Heinrich Ulrichs (Katz, 1995); and the term transgenderism (Prince, 1997). On transgenderism, excellent research has been carried out, with Extreme Ethnography methodology (Mejía, 2006; Nieto, 2008; Mas, 2014).

In reference to queer theory and the use of autoethnography (Spieldenner and Eguchi, 2019) they have pointed out the relevance of the method.

Subversive and critical science has never remained silent against the heteropatriarchy. Exclusive heterosexuality must be viewed, according to Rubin (1975), as an “instituted process”. “If we define incest taboos broadly, as institutional or cultural restrictions on sexuality, then exclusive heterosexuality is an incest taboo –a structural feature of the social systems in which is present” (p.180).

In this same sense they have manifested (Sepidoza et al., 2014, p.67) regarding the denial of certain human rights and the white hegemonic model resulting from colonization in Asia and the emergence of the queer movement:

It is very interesting how desire manages to transgress boundaries. […] colonialism shapes desire, fetishizing both whiteness and other bodies of color. Colonial desires perpetuate hierarchies. However, these engender, too, the desire to reconcile these hierarchies. This hearkens back to my critique about queer theory and its myopic focus on sexuality. In colonial contexts, socio-political and economic rights are also linked to sex.

In short, human sexuality is, in its essence, plastic and bisexual. Exclusive heterosexuality is, therefore, an institutional restriction on sexuality, an incest taboo that goes against our biological nature and against part of the structure of the gender system. Another way of formulating this idea is to say that sexuality becomes a social ordering principle only when limited and controlled –only when it is incorporated into a gender ideology (Cucchiari, 1981).

Consequently, the elimination of homophobia, lesbophobia, transphobia and biphobia requires the destruction of the socialising logic that links heterosexuality and patriarchy.

1.4. The research, educational and social critical perspective

In the last two decades there has been a confluence of great scientific interest related to human rights, between research and education -in LGTBIQ phobias-, the emergence of a strong movement from feminism, and the social struggles for the visibility of collectives according to sexual preference, as well as the denunciations of harassment, bullying, violence and the difficulties that arise and inclusive education in different countries around the world. Some of the most recent research of interest focused on violence has been developed by UNESCO (2016) and UNESCO (2019) with extensive studies that are of great interest for political and educational decision-making.

Research was conducted on the nature and extent of SOGIE [sexual orientation and gender identity/expression]-related school violence in schools in North, Central and South Viet Nam as part of a wider study on school-related gender-based violence. Issues of consent and privacy for participants were carefully considered. Gay, bisexual and gender non-conforming male and male-to-female transgender (GBT) students faced highly significant increases in risk for all kinds of violence compared to lesbian, bisexual, and gender non-conforming female and female-to-male transgender (LBT) students. This appeared to be influenced by factors including perpetrator motivations of punishing ‘feminine’ expressions on male bodies, and increased respect for ‘masculine’ expressions on female bodies – within the context of a Confucian culture that broadly privileges masculinity. […] The surveyed LGBT students who had experienced violence was more likely to report that they sought assistance from friends and less likely to seek help from staff than other students who had experienced violence. Research findings suggest an imperative need to raise awareness and capacity of school administrators and teachers with regard to SOGIE-related school violence to empower them to act as agent of change in making schools safer places for LGBT students (UNESCO, 2016, p. 11)

With reference to the methodology used, it is interesting to note that the following have been selected:

Mixed methods of in-person and online surveys, focus group discussions in-depth interviews were used to collect data from four distinct groups of participants. These included a general sampling of school students, LGBT students, school staff (including administrators and teachers) and their parents. Findings Evidence from the 3,698 survey participants, 280 Focus-Group Discussion (FGD) participants and 85 In-Depth Interviews (IDIs) with students (including LGBT students), school staff, and parents showed many school stakeholders were influenced by constructions of LGBT people as diseased or problematic. LGBT students presented a stronger awareness of SOGIE-related school violence than other groups, most particularly verbal violence and its negative long-term effects. SOGIE-related school violence was high in Viet Nam […] LGBT youth experienced clear negative academic and wellbeing outcomes, ranging from lowered grades and school drop-out, to depression and suicidal ideation (UNESCO, 2016)

In more recent research Bringing it Out in the Open:

Monitoring school violence based on sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression in national and international surveys (UNESCO, 2019).

It is informed by best practice from large institutional surveys that have been successfully conducted at the international or national level, collecting data on school violence based on SOGIE [sexual orientation and gender identity/expression], identifying and fulfilling indicators on school violence based on SOGIE. policy-makers in the education sector; and researchers who investigate school violence, including against young lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) people and students who are perceived as gender non-conforming.

The relevance of studies on violence is unquestionable -and their usefulness is undeniable in the design of- but governments do not always take measures to include long-term education programs (Díez et al., 2020), but are sometimes limited to information sessions in schools whose effects of change are doubtful, are not evaluated or simply ignore international recommendations.

Lesbophobia, homophobia, transphobia, and biphobia at school “raises the important question of how curriculum material and pedagogical practices function as a policing or gate-keeping framework within a school, and its links to boys' practices of self-decipherment and peer surveillance and harassment” (Martino and Pallotta-Chiarolli, 2006, p. 22).

Referring to education in India, as Sundara (2017) points out, there is an Absence of Transgender in Curriculum that we can generalize -due to the closeness and repressive culture shared by many Asian countries. Invisibility as gender bias means that some groups do not exist.

The development of several pioneering educational projects in Europe (Barragán et al., 2001; Barragán et al., 2005; Barragán, 2007) has permitted the study of homophobia in different countries with highly positive results, albeit derived from very different cultural and socio-economic contexts. The design of curricular materials for adolescents has looked at the use of “gender-specific programs on masculinity [that] are often commonly small-scale, and based on the discussion in intimate groups [or] on a larger scale” (Connell, 1997b, p. 63). For the first time, masculinity and homophobia are included in the curricular content implemented in the participating countries with a set of activities that analyse the construction of sexual preference and the right to choose freely. One good example is the Daphne Project (Daphne Project: Preparation of curricular materials for the prevention of sexual violence in adolescent males [1998–1999]. European Commission. Directorate General of Justice and Family Affairs. Spain, Denmark, and Germany. Contract: 98/146/WC). The segregation was based on the idea that only boys are offenders, but we do not agree with this pedagogical and social idea.

The educational program Education for the Present without Violence: Building a Culture of Peace also included masculinities and homophobia. The use of educational itineraries has enabled us to verify that the majority of teachers select this subject – from the nine proposed subjects– less than any other.

The social impact of our findings and educational programs, curriculum development, and evaluation have had a stronger positive influence on policy-makers, researchers, and teachers in a wide scope of countries because it is included as an example of good practices: Daphne. An EU response to combat violence towards children, young people, and women. A model for the Prevention of Gender Violence and Intercultural Violence Developed with the Participation of Adolescents in Educational Centres. The project was selected amongst the best in Europe and has been translated into 20 languages.

Later, our programs have been continued in prison contexts in which “homophobia” is more difficult to work with but without this fact being a barrier to change (Barragán et al., 2013; Barragán et al., 2016), as well as in extended periods of teacher training in conjunction with the Secretariat of Public Education (Mexico) and the Interdisciplinary Study Group in Human Sexuality and Attention to Persons with Disabilities (GEISHAD, México). They have also led to the publication of the Guía de Convivencia para Relaciones Interpersonales y Resolución de Conflictos (Coexistence Guide for Interpersonal Relationships and Conflict Resolution, Díaz and Barragan, 2015), focused on bullying but including “violence on the grounds of sexual preference”.

The outcomes of the Education for the Present without Violence program and the results of the discussion groups alerted us to the presence of expressions of violence (Barragán and Sáez, 2006, p.19–30).

Concern over what is now described as “verbal” (insults, nicknames or harassment), “minor” (because it occurs between peers, usually begins as a game and is not intended to cause severe harm) or “hidden” violence (because it takes place outside the classroom, during breaks, between classes or in lavatories) embodies a fear that what is already part of the general climate in schools ends up crystallising in problems involving serious and open physical violence in certain schools and social sectors. Unfortunately, this premonition, and concern, on the part of European teachers, has become a reality without effective measures being taken in the schools; nor are there any prospects of any measures being taken.

Over the last decade, there has been an increase in global and local policy protections on the basis of gender identity and expression in education and a recent spate of coverage of transgender students on Australian television and news media (Jones et al., 2016). They explore the school experiences of Australian transgender and gender diverse students', with particular consideration of recognition of their gender identity in the documentation, experiences of puberty and sexuality education, treatment by staff and students, and other forms of provision. It reports on the findings of 2013 a study which combined a survey of 189 transgender and gender diverse Australian students aged 14–25 years, with 16 online interviews with members of this group. The study was informed by a community advisory group which included a range of transgender, gender diverse and intersex people. Findings include both quantitative and qualitative data, detailing a trend towards more disruptive, fluid, and inconsistent identifications by members of this student group, and diversification of their needs at school. Student advocacy on topics including sexuality and puberty education was shown to be common and also useful in improving individual well-being and social.

With respect to sexuality education, two-thirds of the survey participants rated their schools' provisions as mostly inappropriate (2016 p.163).

The school experiences and research developed in some Secondary schools in Iceland are really interesting because of their findings (Kjaran and Kristinnsdóttir, 2015), with an “interview and semi-preparatory observations with five LGTB pupils at two upper secondary schools”.

We must also mention the South Africa Contributions to LGTBI education issues as pointed Jones (2018) as well as some researchers who have described the extreme effects of what we call harmfull sexual violence and bullying that have come to promote suicide -although it is not a key objective of this paper-on occasions outside and within educational centers (González Contreras et al., 2020; Pérez-Jorge et al., 2020, Pérez-Jorge et al., 2020).

Kjaran and Kristinnsdóttir (2015) draws on interview data with five LGBT students supported by semi-participatory observations at two upper secondary schools. The main objective is to describe various modes LGBT students use when caring for the self. We depict LGBT students as active subjects who resist their heteronormative environment and its heterosexist discourse by caring for their selves. We are especially inspired by Foucault's later works on the ethics of being, where he draws attention to the possibility of resistance and transgression as ethical work. The five participants we interviewed attended various upper secondary schools and had different backgrounds. Their life histories reflected diversity in regard to gender, sexual preference, and transgression practices.

1.5. The need of inclusion, cultural diversity

Different investigations have rigorously reflected on inclusive education linked to the movement and people both Queer (Rasmussen, 2003) and GLBTIQ (Jones et al., 2014) as well as to the works developed with teachers (Wright et al., 2006; Kosciw et al., 2012; Jones et al., 2014 and Jones, 2015) and workplace analysis Wright et al. (2006) mentioned above.

The research indicated that equal opportunities and diversity policies which include sexual orientation; the establishment and promotion of same-sex benefits; positive employer and trade union signals; the existence of LGBT groups, the presence of LGB colleagues and LGB senior managers can help LGB people come out.

In our 2011 survey, we examine the experiences of LGBT students with regard to indicators of negative school climate (Kosciw et al., 2011, 2012) but the selection of the sample was done by email and other media tools.

Once again, I draw on queer theories as helpful, though not unproblematic, aid in analyzing the continued focus on the subjection of LGBTI-identified teachers and students. I further consider the potential of affirming the body and pleasure in research on sexualities and secondary schooling. As I will show, the disavowal of sex and absenting of the body within many educational discourses is antithetical to the art of inclusion because of its tendency to exclude diverse bodies, pleasures, and desires from discussions of sexualities and schooling. This overture has begun a problematization of some familiar arts of inclusion associated with people who identify as LGBTI in high school settings. It also provides an introduction to the extended work of this book, which uses the work of queer, feminist, and poststructuralist theories in order to further consider mainstream, alternative, and imagined arts of inclusion (Rasmussen, 2003, p. 35)

Foundationally, LGBTQ pride emphasizes the language of individual agency and freedom through which sexual dissident and gender non-conforming people can magically express who they want to be (McCune, 2014; Ross, 2005). It is now up to each sexual and gender minoritarian's responsibility and choice to come out of the closet. Yet, the closet is an insufficient trope that signifies the darkness (or backwardness) of LGBTQ pride. This paradigm color-blinds the historical continuities of inequality (including but not limited to heterosexism and homo/bi/trans-phobia) (Eguchi, 2019, p. 85)

Cultural diversity has always been addressed by getting to implement our educational programs in countries with primary and secondary schools whose students came from more than 150 different nationalities, including African-black, Asian, and Latin American populations.

As pointed (Kjaran and Jóhannesson, 2015), the concept of space is gaining increased attention in studies of sexuality and gender, not least those focusing on heterosexism and heteronormativity. Such studies have demonstrated that space is sexualized, gendered, and actively produced. The findings from an ethnographic study of two Icelandic upper secondary schools. One is a traditional academic school in Reykjavík (the capital city) and the other is a mixture of a vocational and an academic school, located in a small urban community in the northern part of the country. In addition to the ethnographic component of the research, five former and current lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) students from the two schools were interviewed. They describe how different spaces are constructed through the discourse of heterosexuality and hegemonic gender performances. In doing so, we focus on the processes of inclusion, exclusion, and queering of different spaces, and the interplay of these processes in constructing sexuality and gender.

Hughes-Hassell et al. (2013) han cuestionado incluso -vinculado con la inclusión-si las escuelas en Estados Unidos están realmente equipadas con información sobre LGTBI.

Finally, in What are we Doing Wrong in Education? [¿Qué estamos haciendo mal en la educación?] We have included some guidelines on the need to incorporate in university education subjects of Gender and Feminism as well as Sexuality Education and the ways to avoid gender bias and sexual desires freedom (Barragán and Pére-Jorge, 2019).

The need for inclusion and respect for diversity has always been present in all our educational interventions (Pérez-Jorge et al., 2020, Pérez-Jorge et al., 2020), which explains why we have taken into account work in centers with sexual and cultural diversity and students with disabilities [Education for the Common Good Towards a critical, inclusive and socially engaged practice] coordinated by Enrique Javier Díez Gutiérrez, Juan Ramón Rodríguez Fernández, Octaedro (2020).

2. Method

2.1. Critical-emancipatory action research

As Santos (1990, p. 39) points out: “The controversial qualitative versus quantitative methods are resolved today by the specialists of both fields, with an attempt at methodological approximation, understanding, and conjugation (Cook and Reichardt, 1986). However, the nature of some social phenomena suggests a qualitative approach, since their complexity cannot be fully captured through experimental designs (Stake, 1974; Angulo, 1989)”.

From a critical-emancipatory perspective it has been pointed out that: “Two essential objectives have every action-research: to improve and to interest. In terms of improvement, the action research points to three sectors: first, improvement of practice; second, improvement of the understanding of the practice by those who practice it; and third, improvement of the situation in which the practice takes place. The goal of interest goes hand in hand with improvement. Those involved in the practice in question must be involved in all phases of the research-action process, planning, action, observation and reflection/planning, action, observation and reflection of the action-research process. As an action research project develops, it is expected that a growing circle of those affected in practice will become interested in the process (Carr and Kemmis, 1988, p.177)”. Criticism of technological approaches has given rise to different models, including the emancipating critic who tries to free people who are suffering from repressive and unjust practices, who seeks to liberate the people involved and give them greater autonomy through collective reflection.

“The choice of evaluation methodology depends to a large extent on the ideological conception and epistemological formation of the evaluator”, but it must also “depend on the demands of the research situation in question” (Cook and Reichardt, 1986, p.41). Action research requires a model and evaluation strategies that are in line with the stages of its development and are therefore subject to modifications as an effect of the transformations that take place in practice. Our model includes four stages: entry and negotiation, identification of needs and action planning, curriculum development, and implementation, evaluation and review (Hutchins, 1992).

Our basic goal was to develop a critical-emancipatory action research educational program over an extended period of two complete school years to address the problem of the absence of systematic programs designed collaboratively with primary and secondary school teachers.

One of the main ethical guarantees in the protection of children rights and all the sample, is the fact that the organizations hard strong criteria to avoid unethical behavior (Ramabu, 2020; Madrid et al., 2020). In this line, efficiency in the organization, coordination, monitoring, implementation, and evaluation in other projects were needed to eligibility criteria to get funding for European Union Projects. We had also to ensure that the core research team had deep experience and skills in this time of projects and ensure the capacity of partners to avoid potential risks and what action we were planning to undertake to mitigate them. One complementary criterion was the inclusion of countries from North, South, East, and West of Europe. We have had a previous European project with the organizations that we invite as partners.

The Kinderschhut-Zentrum (Oldenburg, Germany) devoted to the protection of violence against children within the families; The University of Arhus (Denmark); the CIDI (Centro Iniciativa Democratica degli Insegnanti of Milano, Lombardia (Italy) and the University of La Laguna as public organizations -all of them-have their own internal process to approve ethical principles in any research. One additional fact is that the project was selected as an example of “good practices” after one ex post-facto evaluation of the European Union. We had to ensure ethical issues through a process of negotiation and free participation and asking written permission to all participants in the program. In addition, to establish two key negotiation processes in critical emancipatory action research we needed to provide knowledge of the results and undertake interpretation, analysis and conclusions with all participating groups.

As a deeper guarantee of the evaluation, we want to recall the fact that included External Evaluation made by 120 women -of the European countries engaged in this project- and the Meta-evaluation (absent in the majority of educational experiences and research).

2.2. Sample

Criteria-based selection was used, a set of attributes established as basic units of the study (Goetz and LeCompte, 1988): four schools per country, a team of five teachers per school that taught different subjects, and who in turn were part of the school's management team. The schools included students with disabilities and immigrant students. In addition, consideration was given to the size and diversity of the schools, and the fact that they were located in different areas (urban, rural, peri-urban). We obtained informed written consent from the parents/guardians of the participants.

The total sample, with which we began to work from a negotiation and awareness-raising approach, and the evaluated sample are reproduced below. The scope and dissemination of the educational practices are of particular relevance because they create an environment that favors the commitment of students and teachers to violence prevention programs.

2.3. Negotiation with teachers and curriculum development

For the selection of primary and secondary schools, telephone or personal contact was established with the Principal of the educational center to call a first meeting with all the teachers, present the project to them, negotiate the agreements, the commitments they make in participating and the benefits or problems they could solve in the classroom. On average, between three and five meetings were held with teachers during the development of the project, all sessions being evaluated through a non-participating observation, to learn how the level of commitment of teachers to the project was evolving and the different problems that arose. In the same way, an important condition has been fulfilled: to adapt curriculum development to the different educational systems (pedagogical styles, forms of school organization, ability to work as a team, decision-making) and to the cultural characteristics of each country and, in some cases, to the peculiarities of educational establishments.

To ensure the commitment and continuity of teachers in the implementation and evaluation of the program, some key factors or variables have been revealed, which have been obtained through the evaluation by means of the Inventory of Innovation Self-assessment: project objectives (clarity, realistic objectives, consistent with the type of pupils and school); shared project philosophy; clarity in teachers' understanding of what is expected of them and awareness of the need to solve a problem (homophobia) that they cannot solve alone. Any school team should have at least five members of different subjects and some of them of the management team. This was the best way for the inclusion of all types of teachers.

By explicit agreement with the teaching staff, two methods of implementing the curriculum were decided: a compulsory common the program, to compare the learning processes and outcomes of students and to which to suggest changes based on the results of the external evaluation carried out by a group of women and another group of teachers (participant and non-participating in the classroom) as well as internal evaluation, and -the second one-an open program in which teachers could include all modifications they considered relevant, reflecting those changes in a “diary” which was subsequently analyzed. As a result, all teachers participated in a voluntary basis, as did students. Two forms of the training were established: a practical theoretical guide for consultation and seminars at the University of La Laguna attended by all the teachers selected at the beginning of the program. All training activities were conducted in German, Danish, Italian, and Spanish. The inclusion of the activities of the program in the educational centers has adopted the agreement to develop it in the obligatory timetable of classes or through tutoring. It is not extracurricular activities.

Table 1 represents the total number of teachers and pupils in the participating schools, who benefited indirectly from the knowledge and dissemination of the program, while Table 2 lists those who met all the established evaluation requirements. There is an exchange of “good practices” promoted as a form of permanent dissemination of the program and its results, both process, and end.

Table 1.

Indirect beneficiary groups by country.

	Germany	Denmark	Spain	Italy	Mexico	Total
Schools	9	11	5	6	1	32
Teachers	426	565	475	287	4	1,757
Students	8,081	4,922	5,166	4,520	50	22,739

Table 2.

Direct beneficiary groups.

	Germany	Denmark	Spain	Italy	Mexico	Total
Schools	9	11	5	6	1	32
Teachers	12	27	63	40	1	143
Students	229	470	1,682	446	20	2,847

2.4. The evaluation design and instruments

The selection of the methodology, instruments, and validation of the evaluation instruments was initially carried out by the team of experts from the Area of Research and Diagnostic Methods in Education of the Department of Didactics and Educational Research of the University of La Laguna (ULL), with our supervision as project managers. It was then discussed and improved at the first kick-off meeting of the Project with the leaders of the different participating countries, agreeing on the forms of application and timing as well as the sending of all information to the ULL team. All decisions were taken by “consensus” although they involve more hours of discussion, they are firmer because the shared vision implies that it is the best possible decision for their fulfillment. A data archive was created with about five thousand documents that were computerized and submitted to “test tastings” to avoid errors, carried out by the same team that initially designed the evaluation and a Sociology team from the University of Cordoba.

As Elliott pointed out (1993, p.118):

[…] the appraisal process needs to be of a continuous nature. The appraisal must not become a bureaucratic chore or a casual paper exercise. Against that background, we think that the frequency of formal appraisals culminating in written reports should vary according to the stage of the teacher's career.

As regards the use of assessment tools and the use of rating scales, McKernan (1999, p.139–142) pointed out that

[…] they are mainly used in structured observation. While there are various styles – category, numerical, graphical, and pictorial rating scales – they all share the same common feature of having a rater place an object, person, or idea along a sequential scale in terms of estimated value to the rater. Rating scales are described by Gronlund (1981) and Kerlinger (1986), and are recommended for use in action research projects by Hook (1985).

He proposed the use of category rating scales, numerical and graphicrating scales, and self-rating scales.

We have used self-assessment questionnaires with affirmative and negative responses, Likert scales; descriptive estimation scales (from 0 = nothing to 5 = much) to measure the relevance and presence of educational innovation indicators; as well as qualitative data analysis tools such as the Sound forge v.6, which have proven to be very useful in categorizing information.

In order to evaluate the procedure and outcomes of qualitative research, Flick (2004, p. 236) proposed – on the basis of selective plausibility – “to develop new, ‘method-appropriate criteria’, which do justice to the specificity of qualitative research because they have been developed from one of its specific theoretical backgrounds and take the peculiarity of the qualitative research process into account”. Suggested criteria include triangulation and analytical induction (Flick, 2004), as well as alternative criteria for research quality control, such as internal validity (credibility, dependability and confirmability) and external validity (transferability), as suggested by Guba (1981) and Santos (1990).

Triangulation, according to Patton (1990), is a process that involves the use of various data analysts or, according to Denzin (1983), a variety of teachers as researchers. The final research report was sent to teachers whose commitment to the educational project, both in its theoretical and practical aspects had been greater and more prolonged. They completed the two cycles of the action research program, in order to gain a better understanding of implementation in the schools.

As Park (1992, p.160) pointed out: “Simple statistical descriptions, such as the mean, median, percentages, correlations, often show the phenomenon being researched eloquently. These measures are easy to understand for ordinary people and are used in Participatory Action Research”.

As regards the processes of evaluation and improvement of the curriculum and as a complementary guarantee for triangulation, in the different cases in which it has been used, we have created three basic criteria for the incorporation of changes in the curriculum: Relevance, for example including deeper gender conceptualization, improving the gender perspective and making it more visible; Significance: improving questions about homophobia including marriage as a topic of discussion. And, finally, the uniqueness: the material is excellent for working with students with delayed schooling. Some very detailed activities are uncommon in the classroom methodology used in Denmark.

3. Results

The action plan consisted of the joint development, with the teachers, of a program for the prevention of gender-based violence, which included an introduction, objectives, contents or themes, materials, and evaluation tools. The underlying idea was to develop an integrated curriculum based on interdisciplinarity. As Torres (1994, p. 123) argued: “Integrated or interdisciplinary curriculum work will enable those more vital and often conflicting questions or issues, which normally cannot be confined within the boundaries of a single discipline, to be formulated and tackled”.

Consequently, educational itineraries were used, allowing the teaching staff to order the contents according to the needs of the groups and schools. Referring to the ways of working with complexity, Gimeno (2000, p. 33) contended that “it is more ambitious and complicated to implement the idea of providing formative itineraries (Perrenoud, 1966) that break with the dominant organisational framework with an understanding of individualisation that is to be carried out over long periods, breaking with the classifications of degrees and the individual actions of the teachers enclosed within their specialties”. The organisational methods selected by the teachers were diverse: several teachers developed the same subject to carry out a group analysis, they shared groups, reorganised the school timetable, one group shared the same courses or worked in tutorials that –in a complementary way – were very useful (Santana, 2015).

The following table demonstrates the teachers' preferences and the number of times each subject was studied with the different student groups (see Table 3).

Table 3.

Students evaluated by country, subject and groups.

Subject	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
Germany	9	3	5	2	2	3	3	4	3
Spain	10	2	8	4	1	2	4	3	2
Italy	1	1	9	1	5	-	-	1	1
Denmark	1	-	3	2	1	1	1	1	1
Groups	21	6	25	9	9	6	8	9	7
Evaluated students	346	87	543	161	181	48	106	155	89

We may identify the preferences of the teachers according to the subjects evaluated by country, for which the criteria followed included whether the school has a majority population of immigrants or traditions in gender work, as is the case of Germany where they mainly work on masculinities and violence in everyday life. Masculinities and homophobia is the subject that arouses the least interest – because of its complexity –among the teachers, who in Denmark showed their resistance, considering it “offensive” to address “a non-existent problem”. However, homophobia, lesbophobia, transphobia and biphobia seem to have been directly or indirectly included in almost all the contents. It is worth noting the multiplier effect of the fact that the effects of expansion, comments regarding the activities in the school, generate interest in the contents.

A comparison of the results obtained in the nine subjects addressed in the four countries, through student learning self-evaluation, explains significant differences in the work done on homophobia and other subjects (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Student learning self-evaluation by country and global average. I. Masculinities. II. Masculinities and homophobia. III. Violence in everyday life. IV. Sexual violence. V. The sentimental education of men. VI. Interculturality, gender and violenceVII.Interculturality, gender and xenophobia. VIII. Families, power relations and violence. IX. Building a culture of peace.

The highest averages were observed in Spain. Here they are listed by subject from highest to lowest: masculinities, 8.36; interculturality, gender and xenophobia, 8.35; sentimental education, 8.0; building a culture of peace, 8.0; families, power relations and violence, 7.96; violence in everyday life, 7.73; masculinities and homophobia, 7.71; sexual violence, 7.01; interculturality, gender, and violence, 6.58.

3.1. Student conceptions

As we can see in Table 4, the mean and standard deviation in several of the subjects of the curriculum show significant values in the area of interest – Masculinities and Homophobia – highlighting the contrasts between the different students as an expression of the diversity of their conceptions, reflected in the different learning topics developed in the implementation of this study. We have done 1585 questionnaires to primary and secondary pupils in four countries (initial and final) and 2847 pupils have done evaluations of conceptions and knowledge about gender-based violence, including LGTBIQ.

Table 4.

Mean and standard deviation in the self-assessment of student learning by subject.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
Mean	7.93	6.73	7.25	6.51	6.58	5.95	7.83	6.96	8.08
Standard deviation	1.84	1.96	1.91	1.75	2.32	1.36	1.78	1.81	1.48
1 Masculinities (n = 346) 2 Masculinities and homophobia (n = 87) 3 Violence in everyday life (n = 543) 4 Sexual violence (n = 161) 5 Sentimental education (n = 181) 6 Interculturality, gender and violence (n = 48) 7 Interculturality, gender and xenophobia (n = 106) 8 Families, power relations and violence (n = 155) 9 Building a culture of peace (n = 89)

As we can see in Table 5, the responses of the students in relation to building self-concept and its connection with the freedom to choose their sexual preference, and with having greater self-knowledge, is evident in the results.

Table 5.

Positive responses in the self-assessment of student learning by sex.

ITEMS	SEX
	Male	Female
I understand that you can be a real man showing your feelings and being sensitive to others (doing housework, kissing your parents, crying without fear of what people will say)	80.6 %	88.2 %
I have stopped using words like faggot, sissy, queer, dike to insult other people who are sensitive and emotional or have a sexual preference that is different from mine	31.7 %	82.7 %
I feel good when I behave the way I am without caring what others say (self-affirmation)	93.7 %	96.6 %
I am involved in fewer insults, pranks and rumours because they are an expression of violence	50.2%	64.0%
I am becoming more and more respectful of the (non-violent) sexual preferences of each person	81.4 %	90.7 %
I have discovered many positive qualities in myself that I was not previously aware of or that I did not value enough	57.1 %	65.3 %
Now I can recognise the positive qualities of other people with whom I socialise on a daily basisand I respect them more	78.3 %	84.9 %
Each person has the right to freely express their sexual preference	95.5 %	95.3%
I no longer value social reality from my perspective only, and because of this I act knowing that my perspective is not the only one that matters	89.7 %	80.7 %
I like to have friends from other cultures	87.1%	100 %
I have no problem being a friend of gay or lesbian people	61.0 %	61.9 %
I tease and laugh at people who like people of the same sex	41.9 %	16.3 %
I prefer people who were born here to sit next to me in class	87.2 %	89.1 %
Now I try to solve conflicts or disagreements in my house through dialogue and consensus	75.7 %	89.3 %
Men have to accept that citizen ethics is a value to be respected	73.9 %	78.6 %

The bold text refers to most outstanding answers due to the conceptual relevance of their content. They demonstrate the achievement of the objectives of the educational program.

The value of the teacher's view is beyond doubt. As McKernan said, (1988) “curriculum knowledge must be based on the work of practitioners. It is not enough that the curriculum is studied; it needs to be studied by practitioners. Too often practitioners are treated as the objects of inquiry”. But they are agents of research and transformation whose assessment is crucial to explain outcomes. We should remember that the final research report was evaluated by teachers – through the triangulation approach.

We are aware of the improvements that could be made in the future, following the philosophy of action research. “There are no ways of perfectly replicating the researcher's analytical thought processes. There are no straightforward tests for reliability and validity. In short, there are no absolute rules except to do the very best with your full intellect to fairly represent the data and communicate what the data reveal given the purpose of the study” (Patton, 1990, p.372).

The social effects after the completion of the Project are evident in the evaluation through the triangulation of teachers from Italy and Spain.

The paradigm of action research in professional practice points out “Elliot (1990, p.99) - is not easy to implement in educational institutions, as they are currently organized”. The bureaucratic control of governments in schooling processes has given rise to the so-called role culture (Handy, 1984) as an organizational form that facilitates technical control over learning processes in order to achieve certain objectives related to “technical rationality”. Hutchins defines institutionalization as the ability of schools to “continue” with a project of innovation beyond the limits imposed by the dynamics of “curriculum control” and official policies. The assessment made by Professor Anna Zurlo in the triangulation of this report could not have been clearer when she called for a commitment to continuity.

As the teachers informed us, many collectives have decided to continue working with the contents of the curriculum in schools, expanding the teams in a good number of cases. It is also important to note that the Ministry of Employment and Social Affairs, through the Canarian Institute for Women and the Directorate-General for Youth, has designed strategies for the dissemination and adoption of the program in all secondary schools in the Canary Islands, as well as in the areas of youth, equality, gender and women in municipalities (see Tables 6, 7, and 8).

Table 6.

Triangulation of the final research report (Germany).

The material: A personal and professional benefit for the teacher

Working through the research papers and the outlined assignments in the course of the past ten months have once more illustrated and clarified to ME how strongly the veiled and unresolved inner conflicts in individuals govern and support the patterns of behavior performed collectively in the structures of our western societies: Denial and suppression of the human individual's being entitled to the full appreciation of his/her self-breeds collective submission and even support of the mechanisms of hierarchical power. It has confirmed, sharpened, and backed up scientifically MY awareness of what common sense and everyday experience have taught me for years. It has thrown more light on the principles and forces governing MY OWN self-personality and – linked with it – my roles as a woman, a wife, a parent and thus a person teaching young people It has set free more courage and confidence in ME to promote the humane values that are essential for the forming of a collective will and willingness to make and keep peace, to promote them as the condition sine qua non of the world's perseverance despite all short sighted ironic or cynical and derogatory reactions from the party of the “realists towards the “outdated ideas” in question.

The focus on the roles and sentimental aspects of males meet the interest of boys and girls likewise

I had the impression that there is the desire in boys as well as in girls to understand the complex difficulties of males in growing up and forming their identity beyond the perception of questionable if not annoying outward behavior. (Doc. 4.643 Research Report Triangulation, Monica Wulff-Meves, Neues Gymnasium, Oldenburg, Grade 11)

Table 7.

Report triangulation (Italy).

Continuity's desire

The validity of the project that has excited the faculty and students is still appreciated. For the future is desirable, the commitment of a greater number of teachers in the training sessions for the actions of the project, so that the instruments are strengthened to face with competence and efficiency the complex problem of a psycho-pedagogical nature related to the subject of the project (Doc. 4652)

Table 8.

Report triangulation (Spain).

Student learning beyond the project

One of the elements that have given us the most satisfaction after the project is the reaction of the students; in the following course the application of the project we have verified that at multiple times our students resort to explanations, arguments, or examples taken directly from some of the activities carried out in the classroom; This shows that there has been very deep meaningful learning. Likewise, we have detected a greater predisposition to dialogue and negotiation, rejecting verbal violence as an immediate form of action against conflicts (Doc. 4645)

The effects of the program, once completed, as well as the desire for continuity of the teaching staff are evident.

4. Discussion and conclusions

The results support the practical potential of the programs for improving the concept of self and, consequently, for accepting sexual diversity, which is not, however, free of conflict despite having worked in countries in which marriage between people of the same sexual preference without limitations has been recognised. The wisdom of one teacher is very clear: “the desire in boys as well as in girls to understand the complex difficulties of males in growing up and forming their identity beyond the perception of a questionable if not annoying outward behavior”. This is the key to understanding and explaining the strong link between self and desire.

We must stress because it is an absence in other studies cited, that collaboration between university researchers and teaching staff in schools is a necessity that makes it innovative. Researchers do not remain as external agents to schools but are involved in the negotiation and decision-making of how to do the implementation in education.

The need for continuity of anti-homophobic programs is a right that must be demanded of the different governments of all countries, and any budget reduction is unacceptable. Similarly, educational programs on sexuality and the prevention of gender-based violence must be implemented and cannot depend on economic or political factors. They are an attack on both collective and individual social freedoms and we can never renounce the “right to freedom”.

The empowerment of boys and girls and their capacity to recognise, analyse and manage conflicts in their immediate environment ensure the potential for prevention and the elimination of expressions of violence based on sexual preference. It may be contradictory from a radical feminist perspective, as Kruse (1992, p.90) argued, but focusing on girls alone would mean placing the onus on them to make them responsible for change and continuing to assume that “boys will be boys” and therefore cannot change. “We must develop new policies and new models of practice”. Our programs have proven to be effective in terms of raising awareness and of liberating both oppressors (perpetrators) and those who are oppressed. In keeping with research (Iceland, Australia, and South Africa) we must point out that there is always awareness or awareness of learning processes of resistance and struggle against oppression. There is a coincidence of extreme interest and it is the use of ethnography, interviews, and -in general-qualitative research methods because they allow deepening how sexual diversity is lived (Kjaran and Jóhannesson (2015); Spieldenner and Eguchi, 2019).

Perhaps, without any doubt, we can say that the most relevant conclusion has been the confluence of new knowledge from theoretical and practical research, educational experiences, and the analysis of methods and thus, especially, the findings, allow us to have a more complex set of new, coherent contributions in the defense of people's rights to freely choose their way of satisfying sexual desire. We can also have new ways to address gender discrimination and the elimination of any kind of oppression, exclusion linked to sexuality, gender stereotypes, as well as the exclusionary binary construction that we still suffer in contemporary societies.

4.1. An analysis of the successes and the failures

Our evaluation was exhaustive, but we should in the future include “direct observation” of classroom behaviors and recreational spaces inside and outside the schools to supplement the information on behavior changes related to the self and its connection with the freedom to express one's sexuality.

Regarding the design of the evaluation – which was complex and difficult – we should point out that it has provided us with exhaustive information on the learning of the students and the teaching staff. It has evaluated the curriculum and materials, an aspect that has been deficient or lacking entirely in other projects.

It is difficult to bring about change in student conceptions or beliefs: there is strong resistance to change. Educational programs also produce perverse effects on learning. Amongst these unwanted effects we have noted that, although a high percentage of students declared that they do not use psychological violence, there is still a percentage – higher among boys – that do. In the future, we should include an analysis of why no change has been produced in the behaviour, conceptions, and expressions of violence in a given percentage of students.

In addition, the debates that are taking place in many countries over the introduction of legislation in favor of marriage between people of the same sex and transgender regulations are not proving to be all that favorable, which may make it a mechanism that runs counter to educational change. At present, there is a far-reaching debate in the United Kingdom, while laws that protect human rights have been passed in countries like Portugal. We need a greater emphasis on the inclusion in the curriculum of educational centers of programs for the prevention of violence towards the LGTBIQ as well as continuity and evaluation processes that allow us to continuously improve and strengthen teacher training at all levels of education.

Notes:

• 1.With regard to the concept and the use of the word sissy, the origin of the word is clear. Etymology: from sister, sis, and then sissy (1840–1850), acquiring pejorative connotations around 1890. The misogyny is clear.
• 2.The original German text of the letter to Ulrichs of 6 May 1868 is printed in facsimile and in typed transcription with a brief introduction in German and a bibliography by Manfred Herzer in the periodical publication Capri: Zeitschrift für Schwule Geschichte 1 (1987), 25–35.

Declarations

Author contribution statement

D. Pérez-Jorge, F. Barragán-Medero: Conceived and designed the experiments; Performed the experiments; Analyzed and interpreted the data; Contributed reagents, materials, analysis tools or data; Wrote the paper.

Funding statement

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Competing interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

No additional information is available for this paper.