Why Some Parents Support Delaying LGBTQ+ Education: What is“Sexuality Blindfolding”?
Monday, September 16, 2024.
The debate over when to introduce LGBTQ+ topics to children in school has gained significant traction in recent years, with some parents advocating for a delayed approach.
This preference is often grounded in the ideology of "sexuality blindfolding," which suggests that avoiding LGBTQ+ discussions at a young age can prevent bias and protect children from confusion.
However, the research on this topic presents a nuanced picture, with arguments both supporting and challenging the practice of delaying LGBTQ+ education.
By examining the core tenets of sexuality blindfolding and placing it in the broader context of developmental psychology, education policy, and social science research, we can gain a deeper understanding of this issue.
What Is Sexuality Blindfolding?
At its core, sexuality blindfolding is the belief that delaying conversations about sexual orientation and gender identity can protect children from potential bias or confusion.
Proponents of this view argue that young children may not yet be developmentally equipped to handle complex topics related to gender and sexuality.
This belief often translates into support for policies that delay the introduction of these topics in school curricula until middle or high school, allowing parents greater control over the timing of these discussions.
In the United States, the surge of legislative efforts aimed at restricting LGBTQ+ education reflects the growing influence of sexuality blindfolding.
For example, in 2022, over 238 bills were introduced in state legislatures to limit discussions on LGBTQ+ topics in classrooms, often citing the need for "age-appropriate" education and parental rights (Pew Research Center).
These laws resonate with parents who feel that their children should not be exposed to complex topics at too early an age, believing that delaying such discussions will lead to more thoughtful and informed engagement later in life.
Developmental Readiness: The Case for Delaying LGBTQ+ Education
One of the most prominent arguments for delaying LGBTQ+ education revolves around developmental readiness.
Advocates of this approach argue that young children, particularly in elementary school, are not yet cognitively or emotionally prepared to engage with discussions about sexual orientation and gender identity.
According to surveys conducted by the Pew Research Center, a significant portion of elementary school teachers (62%) believe that children should not learn about gender identity at this stage, with many parents echoing this sentiment (Pew Research Center).
The reasoning behind this viewpoint is that young children are still developing their understanding of themselves and the world around them, and early exposure to topics like gender identity could lead to confusion.
Supporters of delaying LGBTQ+ education argue that waiting until middle school or high school allows children to approach these topics with more maturity and a deeper capacity for critical thinking.
This aligns with broader developmental theories that suggest complex social concepts are best introduced when children have a more robust cognitive framework for understanding nuanced ideas. This makes sense to me as well.
This argument often intersects with concerns about parental rights, with many parents asserting that they should have the final say in deciding when and how their children are introduced to topics related to sexual orientation and gender identity.
Policies that delay LGBTQ+ education often emphasize parental control, allowing families to choose the timing and content of these discussions according to their own values (Pew Research Center)(PolitiFact). Parental control is an essential issue.
The Broader Impact of Delaying LGBTQ+ Education
While the developmental readiness argument holds some sway, research suggests that delaying LGBTQ+ education may have unintended negative consequences.
Studies consistently show that inclusive education, introduced early in life, fosters a more empathetic and accepting environment for all students.
A study conducted in the Netherlands, where schools are required to include sexual diversity in their curricula, found that schools that embraced inclusive education saw a reduction in LGBTQ-related bullying. Furthermore, students in these schools were more likely to intervene in cases of homophobic behavior, creating a safer and more supportive school climate (SpringerLink). Considering the profoundly damaging impact of sexual bullying, this is good enough for me.
The American Psychological Association also supports the idea that early exposure to LGBTQ+ topics can promote healthier identity development for all children. Inclusive education helps students understand and accept differences, reducing the risk of prejudice and misinformation.
Contrary to the concerns raised by proponents of sexuality blindfolding, research has found that discussing gender identity and sexual orientation early does not confuse children. Instead, it provides them with the tools to understand and navigate diversity, leading to better outcomes for both LGBTQ+ and non-LGBTQ+ students(Edutopia)(American Psychological Association).
The Risks of Avoidance: Bias and Mental Health
One of the most compelling arguments against delaying LGBTQ+ education is the risk of perpetuating bias and fostering a hostile environment for LGBTQ+ students. Research shows that when schools delay or avoid discussions of LGBTQ+ topics, students are more likely to develop negative attitudes toward their LGBTQ+ peers.
The lack of early, inclusive education can contribute to an environment where stereotypes and misinformation thrive, leading to higher rates of bullying and victimization for LGBTQ+ youth (Edutopia).
The 2019 GLSEN National School Climate Survey found that LGBTQ+ students who attended schools with inclusive curricula and supportive staff reported significantly better mental health outcomes.
These students were less likely to miss school due to feeling unsafe and had higher academic performance compared to their peers in less supportive environments(PolitiFact). Delaying LGBTQ+ education, therefore, risks leaving these students vulnerable to discrimination and harassment, further exacerbating the challenges they face.
The Balance Between Parental Concerns and Inclusivity
At the heart of the debate over LGBTQ+ education is the tension between parental concerns and the broader benefits of inclusivity.
While some parents fear that early exposure to these topics may conflict with their values or confuse their children, the overwhelming body of research suggests that inclusive education promotes empathy, understanding, and a safer school environment for all students.
There may be a middle ground, however, that addresses both perspectives.
By carefully designing curricula that introduce LGBTQ+ topics in an age-appropriate and sensitive manner, educators can help bridge the gap between developmental readiness and inclusivity. This approach would allow for the gradual introduction of these topics, ensuring that children are exposed to diverse perspectives without overwhelming them with information beyond their cognitive and emotional capacities.
Final thoughts
The debate over delaying LGBTQ+ education is unlikely to be resolved anytime soon, as it touches on deeply held beliefs about parenting, education, and societal values. However, the growing body of research makes it clear that early, inclusive education has significant benefits for students of all backgrounds.
While some parents may prefer to delay these discussions, there is evidence which supports the idea that fostering understanding and acceptance from a young age leads to healthier, more empathetic students—and, ultimately, a more inclusive society.
Be Well, Stay Kind, and Godspeed.
REFERENCES:
American Psychological Association. (2022). LGBTQ+ inclusive education in schools. Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/topics/lgbtq/lgbtq-inclusive-curricula
Chaney, K. E., Wilton, L. S., Morgenroth, T., Cipollina, R., & Pereira-Jorge, I. (2024). Predictors and implications of parents’ beliefs about the age appropriateness of LGBTQ+ topics for children. Social Psychological and Personality Science.
Kosciw, J. G., Greytak, E. A., Palmer, N. A., & Boesen, M. J. (2014). The 2013 National School Climate Survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth in our nation’s schools. GLSEN.
Pew Research Center. (2022). Teachers’, teens’, and Americans' views about race and LGBTQ issues in schools. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org
Weaver, H., Smith, G., & Kippax, S. (2005). School-based sex education policies and indicators of sexual health among young people: A comparison of the Netherlands, France, Australia, and the United States. Sex Education, 5(2), 171-188.