Conference Program

In societal contexts increasingly shaped by polarization, anti‑gender discourses, and moralization, sexuality and gender education has become a central arena for democratic negotiation. International and national framework concepts—such as the WHO recommendations or the European Standards for Sexuality Education—emphasize sexuality education as a contribution to equality, self‑determination, and a society guided by compassion and justice. The concept of Comprehensive Sexuality Education (UNESCO, 2018) likewise understands sexuality education as a holistic educational process that addresses cognitive, emotional, social, and physical dimensions and enables learners to make informed, self‑determined decisions. Thus, sexuality education moves far beyond conveying biological facts, preventive measures, or normative knowledge: it becomes a democratic practice that shapes interactions, imaginations, and forms of living together.

In Germany, some non‑school organizations draw on the aforementioned approaches and offer sex‑positive, emancipatory programs. Simultaneously, sexuality education practitioners operate within a highly politicized and contested discursive field, which poses significant challenges to everyday pedagogical work. Against this backdrop, my research examines how sexuality educators interpret these framework concepts and translate them into concrete pedagogical practices. The focus is not on the actors’ attitudes or intentions, but on the structural conditions that become visible in communication. More specifically, the analysis centers on the intrinsic logics of sexuality education—those particular expectations, challenges, and communicative patterns that shape this pedagogical field and influence who is addressed, and how.

Although the scientific discourse on sexuality education has expanded in recent years, it remains relatively limited, especially with regard to empirical studies. There is a particular lack of analyses grounded in social theory and educational science that investigate the concrete enactment of sexuality education in practice—precisely where this practice explicitly seeks to meet the normative aspirations outlined above.

My qualitative research analyzes policy papers, interaction dynamics in sexuality education workshops, and interviews with educators from various non‑school organizations. Based on the theoretical premise that pedagogical concepts always rely on implicit assumptions about their addressees, the analysis focuses on the social differentiations that become visible in communicative practice.

The study`s findings show that the intended inclusive orientation of sexuality education faces structural limitations. Implicit assumptions about normality—regarding sexuality, relationships, gender, or cultural backgrounds—produce exclusion effects that tend to stabilize existing inequalities rather than reduce them. This gives rise to tensions between normative ideals and practical implementation: while sexuality education aims to promote equality and recognition, its modes of addressing learners sometimes reproduce and strengthens precisely the differences it seeks to overcome.