Introduction
The termination of South Africa’s oppressive Apartheid system resulted in the nation striving towards social transformation, embracing diversity, inclusion, and recognising all citizens’ dignity and equality. The institution of education would be a sphere to adopt these principles. The education system intended a complete disconnect from colonial and Apartheid values and cognitions (Department of Basic Education [DBE], 2011). The National Curriculum Statement’s (NCS) overarching aim is to equip students with meaningful and beneficial skills and knowledge to adopt in their daily lives. Education fundamentally influences how individuals interact in various social settings and situations (Landman et al., 1989). As such, education plays a pivotal role in shaping societal norms, belief systems, and power relations. If not critically examined and reconstructed, educational systems and curricula risk perpetuating oppressive ideologies and marginalising certain groups, despite intentions of promoting inclusion and equity (Kumashiro, 2000).
The learning area of Life Orientation (LO), which houses the crucial sub-topic of Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE), is no exception to adopting the principles of social transformation through diversity and the inclusion of all groups. CSE can be broadly defined as a “curriculum-based process of teaching and learning about the cognitive, emotional, physical and social aspects of sexuality” (UNESCO, 2018, p. 16). It commonly aims to provide young people with knowledge to understand, develop, and empower themselves at a biopsychosocial level through promoting social justice, human rights, inclusiveness, and a healthy environment (Jacobs, 2011). However, the extent to which CSE achieves these aims depends on how gender and sexuality matters are framed, represented, and engaged with in the curriculum content and pedagogical approaches (Francis, 2019). A component of CSE is to address the impact of gender norms on disparities and subsequent effects on health and well-being, further alluding to the necessity of content on gender equality (Sell et al., 2021; UNESCO, 2022). However, the manner in which gender and sexuality are constructed within CSE curricula can either challenge or reinforce oppressive social norms and power relations (DePalma & Francis, 2014; Rishworth, 2021).
Although significant progress has been made in implementing school-based CSE programmes in several parts of the world, the inclusion of sexual and gender diversity continues to be a contentious issue regarding whether children and adolescents should be informed of this topic (Gegenfurtner & Gebhardt, 2017). This contention persists in South Africa, despite its relatively progressive views and approaches to including CSE in schools. Extensive research exists in the South African context relating to CSE in schools, largely from educators’ and learners’ perspectives (Francis, 2013; Koch & Wehmeyer, 2021; Mayeza & Vincent, 2019; Ngeleka, 2014). Although this research is valuable, further critical interrogation on how the learning and teaching material content itself discursively constructs and represents gender and sexual identities is required, which can profoundly impact reinforcing or dismantling oppressive social norms (DePalma & Atkinson, 2009).
Hickman and Porfilio (2012) have argued that learning and teaching materials such as textbooks, are viewed as “holy books” by parents, teachers, and students, and students are expected to memorise their content and views as “facts” and “information” (p. 3). The textbooks are structured to depict desired groups in a superior position and is “enhanced by the coexistence of hostile images of those deemed outside the group” (Chernis, 1990, p. 59). This upholds hegemonic ideologies about gender and sexuality. This “unquestioned use of textbooks” has the potential to contribute to and maintain the repressive status quo on gender and sexual identities in the social, economic, and political spheres (Hickman & Porfilio, 2012, p. 3). Against this background, this article demonstrates how the textbook content of CSE in LO represents gender and sexuality. Analysing representations within authoritative curriculum texts is crucial for identifying discursive mechanisms that can perpetuate ignorance, marginalisation, and oppression, even within well-intentioned efforts towards equity and inclusion (Kumashiro, 2000; Loutzenheiser & MacIntosh, 2004).
Methodology
The research informing this article unravels how the textbook content for CSE in the subject of LO represents gender and sexuality. The project analysed the 2015 LO Scripted Lesson Plans (SLPs) for grades 8 to 12, sourced from the Department of Basic Education’s website. 1 At the time of the research, the SLPs were being piloted in five South African provinces since 2015. To date, the status and reviews of the piloted SLPs are unknown, and no further updates have been provided on the DBE’s website about the status of the implementation of these SLPs.
The data was examined through the Critical Diversity Literacy (CDL) theoretical framework (Steyn, 2015). CDL is a critical theory that analyses how dominant social ideologies and power structures are maintained through knowledge production and ignorance about marginalised groups and their lived experiences. It examines how processes of “othering” are enacted discursively to uphold systems of oppression based on gender, sexuality, race, class, and other intersecting identities (Steyn, 2015). The CDL framework guided the analysis in identifying how the curriculum constructs narratives that centre dominant hegemonies while obscuring or misrepresenting perspectives that challenge prevailing norms.
The analysis utilised critical discourse analysis (CDA) as the primary analysis tool, aligning with CDL’s objectives. As articulated by Hilary Janks (1997, 2010), CDA examines how language and discourse operate as sites of power, ideology, and hegemony. It unpacks the linguistic and semiotic choices made in texts to reveal underlying ideological work in marginalising certain groups while valorising others. Specific CDA tools utilised included the analysis of lexical choices, representations of social actors, ideological squaring of texts, and foregrounding/backgrounding representations of gender and sexuality (Janks, 1997; van Dijk, 1993). CDA was an appropriate method given its attention to how discourse reproduces or resists inequitable social arrangements based on gender and sexuality (Lazar, 2007).
Findings and Discussion
The CDL framework guided the determination of whether and how hegemonic orders maintain their dominant position regarding discussions of gender and sexuality in the school text. The analysis unveiled evidence of epistemic ignorance through calculated constructions and representations of gender and sexuality in the SLPs. Epistemic ignorance refers to the active construction of ignorance by dominant groups to maintain systems of oppression and marginalisation of non-abiding identities (Mills, 1997; Tuana, 2006) as well patriarchal ideologies. The analysis exposes what can be described as an “illusion of social transformation”. This implies that the material suggests inclusivity and departure from oppressive discussions. However, there is a continuous and indirect reinforcement of dominant narratives surrounding conventional gender and sexual identities and patriarchal structures. Additionally, the perpetuation of these narratives and those towards non-conforming identities are observable through deliberate selections of language, imagery, and their arrangement.
Epistemic Ignorance
Epistemic ignorance, as defined by Nancy Tuana (2006), refers to the active production of ignorance by dominant groups as a method of maintaining power and oppressing marginalised identities. The epistemology of ignorance is the study of not knowing or unknowing and the study of the generation of subjects that are ignorant. It is also the study of the refusal to be ignorant and the active reconstruction of one’s knowing. It is an overtly political project in the academy, one that seeks to disrupt the structures of unknowing, reveal patterns of active ignorance and insert Others as knowers (McHugh, 2004, p. 87).
This definition of epistemic ignorance highlights three key points: 1) the production of ignorance by hegemonic groups in their deliberate refusal to acknowledge the existence of Others, thereby keeping them in a position of oppression; 2) critical philosophy of ignorance points to the reproduction of the system of oppression by hegemonic groups through knowledge production and erasure; and 3) critical epistemology of ignorance highlights that the active production of ignorance is a project aimed at shutting down processes of social transformation.
The discussion of the findings delves into how these fundamental aspects of epistemic ignorance manifest in the various topics of gender and sexuality in the SLPs. It will be discussed across three themes of reproducing heteronormativity; heteropatriarchal narratives that oppress women and girls; and the perfunctory portrayal of diverse sexual and gender identities.
The Reproduction of Heteronormative Narratives
Due to increased attention to CSE globally and nationally, several reviews of various aspects of CSE have been conducted. Ngabaza and Shefer (2019) report that CSE tends to be heteronormative and encourages the nuclear family. Further studies have shown that the teachings of CSE maintain and perpetuate the male/female binary, which can regulate young people’s gender expression sexualities (Brown, 2022; Ngabaza & Shefer, 2019; Reygan, 2016). The findings revealed that the SLPs reproduce heteronormative ideologies and place extensive emphasis on the male/female binary. The terms “male or female”, “girls and boys”, “men and women”, and “masculinity and femininity” are prominent throughout the SLPs for all grades. In lessons concerning goal setting, messages about gender, safe sex practices, risk factors, sexual violence, consent, and sexual reproduction, there is a consistent division between male and female. Moreover, many examples, questions, points for discussion, and group or individual activities are separated by the gender binary. Interestingly, the terms “man and woman” are used in the context of discussions aimed at teenagers. For example, it is stated in lesson introductions concerning gender, sexual practices, contraceptives, and risk and safety throughout each grade that it is the responsibility of both men and women to prevent teenage pregnancy (DBE, 2015a, 2015b, 2015c, 2015d, 2015e). The social construction of the terms “man” and “woman” are generally used to refer to those who are sexually mature. Additionally, it assumes that only men and women are reproductive, while people who do not identify within the confines of this heterosexual binary are excluded from being reproductive. These representations of the gender binary contribute to perpetuating hegemonic ideologies of the socially acceptable sex/gender binary. This reproduction of heteronormative narratives underpins the oppressive representations of girls and women through a heteropatriarchal lens, as well as the perfunctory representation of diverse genders and sexualities.
Heteropatriarchal Narratives that Oppress Girls and Women
An essential component of CSE is education on the body and bodily processes. The students who have access to these SLPs are at a crucial development stage in which they are navigating their body, and romantic and sexual interests. Therefore, it is necessary to examine how discussions related to the body and romantic and sexual interactions are framed within the text. The analysis revealed several ways that heteropatriarchal narratives were present throughout the SLPs. This included the representation of biological processes, framing of contraceptives, and discussions of power dynamics between boys/men and girls/women through the lens of equality and violence.
Oppression Through Biological Processes
In the discussions of the reproductive systems, the content is framed within the male/female binary. A key revelation in analysing the construction of the reproductive systems is the incessant engineering of the “active/passive” narrative. Many scholars have critically deconstructed how the construction of reproductive content in science places male biological traits as active performers in the act of reproduction, while female biological traits are constructed as passive, only able to perform if awakened by the active performers (Martin, 1990; Reiss, 2018; Scholer, 2002; Williams, 2010). This narrative is prevalent in the discussions of sperm and the egg. In the grade 10 lesson plans (DBE, 2015c), the following statements are present: “if it is fertilized by a man’s sperm” (p. 78) and “sperm, which fertilizes a female egg” (p. 80). The construction of these statements emphasises the male/female dichotomy and reinforces the notion that the male reproductive organ plays an active and crucial role in fertilisation, while the female reproductive organs are in a dormant position. The discussions of the functions and activities required from the male reproductive organs are more extensive, thereby strengthening the precedence of the sperm. The female reproductive system is constructed as being less autonomous (Reiss, 2018) and is reliant on the male reproductive system to fulfil its reproductive functions. From this critical analysis, it is argued that the scientific construction of men’s biological processes as active and women’s biological processes as passive is an extension of systemic patriarchal ideologies. Precedence is awarded to men through the representation of their body and biological functions. This argument is supported by sociologists of science who have “argued convincingly that scientific knowledge is the product of social processes that lead scientists to certain beliefs, identified as knowledge by the scientific community” (Pinto, 2019, p. 199).
A similar variance is present in the discussions of sexual pleasure. Emphasis is placed in the grade 10 lessons on the explanations of “erections” and “ejaculations”. It is emphasised that these sexual pleasure-based outcomes experienced by men are essential for the procreation process. The grade 10 (DBE, 2015c) illustration of the female reproductive system is labelled the clitoris. However, it is not discussed in relation to women’s pleasure, assuming that knowledge of their sexual pleasure is inconsequential, and furthermore not crucial for reproduction. Knowledge of women’s sexual pleasure in all the analysed SLPs is completely absent. On this basis, it is argued that knowledge about women’s pleasure is not seen as valuable, as Tuana (2006) similarly found in her analysis of “The Women’s Health Movement and Epistemologies of Ignorance”. Shefer and Foster (2009) support that there is a lack of positive discourse on the sexuality and sexual pleasure of women within CSE curricula. This erasure underscores the selective discourse of a woman’s body as the text instead actively forefronts narratives that place a woman’s body as solely required for fulfilling biological functions. From this scientific standpoint, the physiological makeup can influence students’ gender ideologies. Men are perceived to be the dominant gender, and education should therefore be structured in a way that reinforces heterosexual masculinity. The socially constructed system of patriarchy is widespread and has infiltrated the field of science. This dominant hegemony is responsible for the knowledge that is retained about gender and sexuality.
Contraceptives: Her Responsibility
Heteropatriarchal narratives are further present in the discussion of contraceptives. This topic is discussed simultaneously through the lens of prevention against HIV, STIs, unintended pregnancy, and the male/female binary. Despite contraception being defined as “the use of artificial methods or other techniques to prevent pregnancy” (grade 9) (DBE, 2015b, p. 2), and the mention of “dual protection” (the use of a condom and hormonal contraception) (grade 12) (DBE, 2015e, p. 48), there is a clear distinction between condoms being for men and hormonal contraceptives intended only for women. Hormonal contraception is a key topic with grades 9 and 10 (DBE, 2015b, 2015c), dedicating entire chapters to discussing hormonal contraception: what they are, the various types, and its purpose and benefits. It is stressed that hormonal contraceptives “can only be used by women” (grade 9) (DBE, 2015b, p. 25). This excerpt immediately emphasises women’s contraceptive, and therefore preventative, responsibility. The following excerpt reinforces the social pressures placed on women to take responsibility to protect themselves from unintended pregnancies, as hormonal contraceptives cannot protect from infections. It further alludes to the necessity of men in making decisions regarding the best-suited hormonal contraception for their partner, thus implying men’s ability to make decisions over a woman’s bodily choices: “The lesson ends with a discussion of how unhealthy gender norms have traditionally labelled contraception as a ‘women’s responsibility’, and how men can play an active role in a sexually active couple’s choice and use of hormonal contraception” (grade 9) (DBE, 2015b, p. 21). This aligns with Nancy Tuana’s (2006) concept of epistemologies of ignorance, where ignorance about certain topics, women’s contraceptive responsibility, is actively produced and maintained to uphold patriarchal power structures.
Gender Power Dynamics: Equality and Violence
The analysis unveiled a range of topics that showcased the power dynamics between boys/men and girls/women. This included condom negotiation, transactional relationships, the topic of power itself, HIV and STIs, and unintended pregnancies. In these sections, there is a tendency to strengthen unhealthy gender messages that consistently place women in oppressive positions, even though the SLPs suggest that men could experience the same inequality and violence as women. However, the mention of these negative outcomes being experienced by men is few and far between. It is necessary to reiterate that all content is structured within the male/female binary. As articulated by Steyn’s (2015) CDL framework, these gendered narratives serve to maintain the dominance of hegemonic masculinity and the subordination of women and the erasure of non-conforming gender identities.
It is an important finding that the SLPs acknowledge systemic patriarchy. In its definition, it recognises that patriarchy is “the idea that boys and men should hold more power than girls and women in all aspects of life” (grade 10) (DBE, 2015c, p. 31), thereby recognising gendered power imbalances which lead to inequalities. The definition of gender equality, again emphasises that it is a project aimed at “providing women and girls with equal access to education, healthcare, decent work, and representation in political and economic decision-making processes” (grade 10) (DBE, 2015c, p. 33). This definition speaks to the unequal power relations between men and women, with a specific focus on women and girls being able to obtain benefits greatly associated with men and boys. Epistemic ignorance is present in its exclusion of men’s role in obtaining gender equality, thereby placing extra emphasis on advocacy for gender equality being a practice for women by women.
The discussions of transactional relationships further contribute to heteropatriarchal narratives and the reproduction of unequal power dynamics. Throughout the SLPs, it is reiterated that women and girls are not afforded the same opportunities as men and boys. In the grade 9 discussions of consent and power sharing, it states that those who experience “disempowered life circumstances (such as poverty, no education, or a lack of employable skills)” (grade 9) (DBE, 2015b, p. 79) are more likely to find themselves in abusive situations or experience unhealthy gender norms and relationships with unequal power relations. All SLPs reinforce that women and girls are most likely to experience these circumstances. The grade 11 (DBE, 2015d) representations of transactional relationships clearly depict young girls engaging in such relationships. The text is cleverly structured to avoid making direct connections between the information on life circumstances and transactional relationships. However, the critical analysis reveals the consistent oppressive narratives geared towards girls and women. Although various terms alongside “transactional relationship” are used to refer to age differences in sexual relationships, such as “intergenerational” or “blessers/blesses”, the focus remains on these types of relationships being between an older man and younger girl, specifically a girl in a lower economic position. The term “sugar daddies” is mentioned multiple times in reference to these relationships with age gaps. It immediately assumes a young girl and an older man. This discussion is accompanied by two distinct images of young girls interacting with older men—one with a young girl and older man holding each other affectionately, and another of a girl in school uniform in conversation with an older man. The construction of these phrases, the chosen images and their specific placement reinforces negative messaging towards girls and women. Scholars underscore how sexuality education discourse, particularly directed at adolescent girls, reproduces victimisation discourses and reinforces the narrative that they will succumb to sexual misconduct at some point in their lives (Ngabaza et al., 2016; Singleton et al., 2019). The ignorance is visible through recognising patriarchy as detrimental to women as well as the acknowledgement of gender inequality. However, the representations of transactional relationships and continuous narratives of the disempowerment of girls and women maintain hegemonic narratives of patriarchal power structures.
A key LO objective is to encourage students to meaningfully to a democratic society (Department of Education, 2011). This aligns with the NCS objectives of social transformation and rectifying social injustices. Activities in the SLP sections on social justice request students to create responses on “how to stop rape, as well as the care, support, and treatment needed after a rape has taken place” (grade 10) (DBE, 2015c, p. 106) and “evaluate an advocacy campaign taken all the way to the Constitutional Court, where all pregnant women living with HIV won the right, under the Bill of Rights, to receive antiretroviral treatment to prevent mother-to-child transmission (PMTCT) of HIV” (grade 12) (DBE, 2015e, p. 8). These activities address the symptoms of systemic inequalities rather than aiming to rectify the injustices of the system itself. From a CDL perspective, students are encouraged to “engage with issues of the transformation of these oppressive systems” (Steyn, 2015, p. 387), such as gender rights and sexual health issues, while simultaneously being taught content that maintains the oppression. The heteropatriarchal narratives of societal contributors remain intact. Students are taught about and are encouraged to address social and systemic issues that uphold oppressive narratives towards women and girls. This demonstrates a superficial portrayal of social transformation. Although the text alludes to rectifying social injustices through its activities, the indirect arrangement of this topic with the placement of discourse on gender, specifically women, can mislead the reader to assume that the text is indeed making positive strides in its representations of gender. However, the discussions on gender power dynamics and social activism are widely spread apart throughout the same SLP as well as between grades. This can guide the reader to interpret that the SLPs have constructed representations of gender and inequalities in a positive manner that will lead to positive social transformation.
Representations of Diverse Sexual and Gender Identities
The SLPs can be credited for the inclusion of diverse sexual and gender identities. However, the analysis of this diversity showcases a perfunctory inclusion. This forefronts the epistemic ignorance of the representation of diverse sexual and gender identities. Epistemic ignorance, as it relates to gender and sexual diversity, refers to the systematic production of ignorance about the lived experiences, identities, and perspectives of those who do not conform to cisheteronormative ideals. It is only in the grade 10 SLP (DBE, 2015c), of all SLPs analysed, that one table of definitions is provided that defines lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, intersex, and asexual (LGBTQIA). This minimal inclusion of diverse gender and sexual identities, without substantive engagement with their lived experiences and perspectives, exemplifies the operation of epistemic ignorance. In discussions of HIV, risk, and safety/protection, the risk and safety factors for the LGBTQIA community are absent. However, in the brief mention of sexual violence, it is stated that “there is also a culture of targeting people in the LGBTQIA community because of their sexual orientation” (grade 10) (DBE, 2015c, p. 106). This statement, while acknowledging violence against LGBTQIA individuals, does so in a manner that frames them as passive victims rather than engaging with discourse that perpetuates violence towards them. It further disregards their agency, resilience, and perspectives on addressing such violence. This exemplifies how epistemic ignorance operates through narrow, stereotypical representations that deny marginalised groups their full epistemic credibility and humanity (Alcoff, 2007; Mills, 1997). It is argued that the way the content on LGBTQIA individuals is structured has the potential to “name and shame” non-conforming identities. It has the propensity to reproduce stigma and discrimination towards alternative genders and sexualities and maintain the male/female binary (see Kay & Jackson, 2008). For example, it is stated that “a person or a group of people experience stigma when they feel disapproved of, judged, excluded, or treated differently because of who they are or their situation. People living with different gender or sexual identities are a few examples” (grade 10) (DBE, 2015c, p. 48). This statement mentions “a few examples”, however only mentions diverse sexual and gender identities as one example. Here, negative discourse towards this community is distinct from any other group, thereby upholding narrow views that can perpetuate their exclusion. Additionally it mentions that “I will treat other people, men and women, with respect” (grade 9) (DBE, 2015b, p. 16). By stating that only men and women will be treated with respect, it exemplifies how the text perpetuates the systematic ignorance and exclusion of those who do not conform to the gender binary, denying them full recognition and human dignity (Alcoff, 2007; Mills, 1997). LGBTQIA identities are acknowledged in a superficial manner, while their knowledge, realities, and agency are obscured, thereby reproducing their marginalisation.
The most discussed of the LGBTQIA identities is intersex. It is clearly defined in the grade 10 table of definitions that an intersex person is someone with both male and female reproductive organs. However, there is no further discussion of their reproductive organs in the sections on sexual reproductive systems or their (in)ability to procreate. This definition of intersex is inaccurate as the biology of an intersex person is not solely based on reproductive organs but includes other sex characteristics such as hormonal and chromosome patterns. This incomplete and inaccurate representation of intersex identities exemplifies the operation of epistemic ignorance, where marginalised experiences and knowledges are distorted, oversimplified, or erased from dominant discourses (Alcoff, 2007; Mills, 1997). Interestingly, in a discussion of role models in grade 11 (DBE, 2015d), unrelated to the section on LGBTQIA identities, Caster Semenya, a prominent intersex athlete, is used as an example of a positive role model. In the discussion of Caster Semenya as a role model, the focus is on her accomplishments as an athlete. The only reference to her intersex identity is a short statement that “she challenged gender bias because she was born as an intersex person and has had to challenge her right to run as a woman athlete” (grade 11) (DBE, 2015d, p. 65).
While Caster Semenya’s inclusion as a role model is positive, the perfunctory representation of her intersex identity and the challenges she has faced exemplifies the marginalisation of intersex perspectives and the perpetuation of ignorance about their lived realities within dominant discourses (Alcoff, 2007). Here, the text can claim inclusion as there is mention of intersex, an identity which is largely side-lined in discussions of diverse genders and sexualities. However, the manner in which intersex is discussed methodically excludes necessary sexual health knowledge on intersex bodies. This further perpetuates heteronormativity. Intersex bodies may only become visible during puberty. Considering that the analysed SLPs are for students in secondary school, who have begun to experience puberty, the exclusion of sexual health knowledge about intersex can be detrimental to students who could be experiencing these changes at this time.
The analysis further reveals how non-heterosexual orientations are discussed within the confines of cisnormativity (Kannelmäe, 2014). Gay and lesbian orientations are constructed to be the most acceptable of non-heterosexual sexual orientations. This framing upholds the pervasive epistemic ignorance surrounding non-conforming sexual orientations by subsuming them within the cisnormative gender binary (Alcoff, 2007; Mills, 1997). Gay orientations are mentioned the most throughout the SLPs, although it is perfunctory. There are several images of gay couples, and only one of a lesbian couple in the grade 10 text. Scholars Adrienne Rich (1980) and Cori Wong (2011) have argued that lesbian identities tend to be overlooked since “heterosexuality is enforced for girls and women through various political, economic, and social practices that naturalize its compulsory character, thereby making lesbian existence seem like, at best, a deviation from a woman’s natural attraction to men” (Wong, 2011, p. 9). This erasure and marginalisation of lesbian experiences and identities in the text exemplify how epistemic ignorance operates through the active production of “unknowings” that maintain patriarchal and heteronormative power structures (Tuana, 2006). This aligns with Steyn’s (2015) CDL framework that a person who does not adhere to their hegemonically assigned gender roles will be overlooked and remain oppressed. In the grade 10 and 12 SLPs (DBE, 2015c, 2015e), in the sections on social and environmental justice and well-being, there is a specific focus on HIV. On the same pages as these discussions is an illustration of a gay couple being affectionate. There is no direct correlation between these images and the HIV discussions. However, it poses the question: why are images of gay couples unrelatedly being included in sections where HIV is discussed? It cannot be stated with certainty that the placement of these images in relation to HIV discussions is intentional, but it can be argued that its placement can create an unconscious bias about gay identities and their negative association with HIV/AIDS. This exemplifies how epistemic ignorance manifests through subtle cues and representations that reinforce stigmatising stereotypes about marginalised groups. In this case, linking gay men with HIV/AIDS in a manner that perpetuates their marginalisation (Treichler, 1999). Research has shown that abstinence-slanted approaches to CSE tend to “conflate being gay with being HIV-positive, diseased, or disease-prone” (Kay & Jackson, 2008, p. 12). Furthermore, knowledge about protective sexual measures for gay couples is absent. This omission of vital sexual health information for LGBTQIA individuals exemplifies the systematic production of ignorance surrounding their needs and experiences, perpetuating their exclusion and vulnerability (Alcoff, 2007; Tuana, 2006). Tuana (2006) notes that this form of ignorance is wilful. This supports the argument that this inclusion of LGBTQIA people and the accompanying images are merely an illusion of social transformation. By systematically neglecting and obscuring LGBTQIA knowledges and realities within discourses like the CSE curriculum, wilful ignorance is actively perpetuated in favour of maintaining oppressive power relations (Alcoff, 2007; Mills, 1997; Tuana, 2006). It further reinforces the notion that their sexual health and safety are considered inconsequential, even though many students have already begun identifying with LGBTQIA identities in school. Studies by Elia and Eliason (2010) and Gowen and Winges-Yanez (2014) support that the sexual health needs and experiences of LGBTQIA youth are largely excluded from CSE curricula. Additionally, studies conducted with LGBTQIA youth reinforce that school-based CSE is heteronormative and cisgender-focused (Naser et al., 2020), negatively impacting their ability to receive factual and essential sexual health information. The construction of sexual and gender diverse identities, and the omission of crucial sexual health knowledge for them in this critical analysis amplifies the negative outcomes that these scholars have underscored. By minimising their inclusion and access to necessary sexual health information, it opens the door for shame, guilt, and bullying, and maintains their marginalisation (Baams et al., 2017; Francis, 2017).
Conclusion
The critical analysis of grade 8 to 12 CSE SLPs reveals that it actively reproduces oppressive narratives of heteronormativity and patriarchy through calculated representations and omissions, resulting in epistemic ignorance. Hegemonic gender ideologies are maintained through the incessant framing of discussions within the male/female binary, erasing and delegitimising diverse sexual and gender identities and experiences. Furthermore, representations of biological processes, contraceptives, and gendered power dynamics consistently position women as subordinate to men, upholding patriarchal norms and ignorance surrounding women’s sexuality and agency. Perhaps most strikingly, the perfunctory inclusion of LGBTQIA identities exemplifies how epistemic ignorance functions through tokenistic acknowledgement coupled with the systematic marginalisation of marginalised knowledges, perspectives, and lived realities. While LGBTQIA terms are nominally defined, their experiences are absent from substantive discussions of sexual health, safety, and well-being. This absence perpetuates harmful stereotypes, obscures vital information for LGBTQIA youth, and reinforces their exclusion from full epistemic recognition and agency. This ignorance is actively constructed and maintained by dominant groups as a means of upholding and justifying existing power structures and relations of oppression. It involves denying epistemic credibility and agency to marginalised groups, obscuring their knowledges and realities, and perpetuating harmful stereotypes and misconceptions (Alcoff, 2007; Mills, 1997; Tuana, 2006). Epistemic ignorance operates through various mechanisms, such as biased knowledge production, neglect of marginalised perspectives in curricula and discourse, and the erasure or trivialisation of non-normative identities and experiences. Ultimately, the analysis affirmed that despite its professed commitments to inclusion and social transformation, the CSE curriculum actively produces and perpetuates strategic forms of ignorance that maintain cisheteronormative and patriarchal power structures. Overcoming this ignorance requires actively centring and amplifying the voices, knowledges, and lived realities of those who have been systematically marginalised and excluded from dominant discourses. Participatory research methods that actively involve LGBTQIA individuals, gender non-conforming persons, and other oppressed groups in the research process can help challenge dominant narratives and knowledge production practices that have historically excluded them. Additionally, more critical analyses of curriculum materials across different subjects and grade levels are needed to comprehensively map how institutionalised education perpetuates ignorance about gender and sexual diversity. Overcoming epistemic ignorance necessitates a sustained, multi-pronged effort that critically engages with dominant discourses, amplifies marginalised knowledges and voices, and reconstructs pedagogies in ways that centre gender and sexual diversity as legitimate, valued, and indispensable components of CSE and beyond.