Conference Program

In Italian schools, sexuality and gender education often takes the form of a residual and uneven intervention (Chinelli et al., 2023). The absence of mandatory provision and clear national guidance weakens continuity and increases reliance on individual teachers’ sensitivities and local contingencies. In this context, sexuality education tends to enter the curriculum mainly when it is framed as risk management – puberty, reproduction, sexually transmitted infections etc. – while it remains marginal when it addresses meanings, relationships, and rights (European Commission, 2020; Cassar, 2022). Drawing on 46 semi-structured interviews with teachers from early childhood education (kindergarten) to upper secondary school, this paper examines the mechanisms through which this gap between intentions and practices is produced and consolidated in everyday school life. The analysis highlights a recurring discrepancy between what is declared – CSE as education for wellbeing, equity, and citizenship – and what is enacted, which teachers experience as fragile and potentially conflictual. Lack of training, low self-efficacy, fear of disputes with families, and ambiguity around the institutional mandate orient many practices toward what appears “defensible.” As a result, teachers often avoid topics perceived as sensitive (pleasure, sexual orientation, gender identity), contributing to a hidden curriculum in which heteronormativity and gender binarism are not explicitly asserted but operate as a “gender dispositive” (Burgio, 2015). Through reflexive thematic analysis and the use of vignettes, the study shows how teachers continuously negotiate the boundaries of what can be said – not so much whether to talk, but how to do so without exposing themselves. Using the UNESCO (2018) Comprehensive Sexuality Education framework as an interpretive lens, the paper argues that “what remains unspoken” functions as a pedagogical mechanism, shaping what can be named, who can be recognised, and which experiences are rendered legitimate within school spaces. From this perspective, CSE is not merely the transmission of information; rather, it can be understood as a transformative and ethical democratic practice (hooks, 2020). It educates for consent, care, and agency and can therefore help counter anti-gender misinformation and polarisation without falling into defensive postures. Finally, the paper proposes an implementation pathway that treats sexuality and gender as social structures (Risman, 2004), consistent with the evidence presented: at the individual level, targeted professional development and supports for teacher self-efficacy; at the interactional level, dialogic micro-practices to welcome students’ questions and manage complex discussions; and at the institutional level, school policies that make CSE legitimate and continuous (curriculum planning, formal frameworks, transparent communication with families, and partnerships with local health and social services). Reframed in these terms, CSE can operate as democratic infrastructure: not an “additional topic,” but an educational condition that enables recognition, participation, and coexistence in plural school communities oriented toward valuing difference.