Mustanski, Brian, et al. “Feasibility, Acceptability, and Initial Efficacy of an Online Sexual Health Promotion Program for LGBT Youth: The Queer Sex Ed Intervention.” The Journal of Sex Research, vol. 52, no. 2, 2014, pp. 1–11.

-outcomes of feasibility of online sexual education programs for LGBT youth were statistically significant. Contained many subsections related to sex and relationships directed for LGBT youth, outreach was also via web. Program like other online educational programs (alcohol/driving/domestic violence)

-These programs may be effective due to the lack of parental and peer support, lack of school-based education and community programs in comparison to heterosexual sex education and support. Only option for some

-Men who have sex with men represent the majority of HIV diagnoses among youth in the US (need to reword)

-Among female born youth, there is some evidence of increased odds of teen pregnancy among lesbian and bisexual girls (need to reword)

-sexual health as more than disease and pregnancy, should include information on sexuality, healthy relationships, pleasure. Accepting of ones sexual and gender identity should be important to sexual health but isn't included in current sexual education models, which could be detrimental to LGBT youth

-program offers a means of education for those who don't get it in school. Internet based means could reach wide community available to anyone. good fill in for school, creates online community for users.

Bittner, Robert. “Queering Sex Education: Young Adult Literature with LGBT Content as Complementary Sources of Sex and Sexuality Education.” Journal of LGBT Youth, vol. 9, no. 4, 2012, pp. 357–372.

-Since sexual education programs aren't available to young people, especially LGBT youth, many youth get information from young adult novels

-supplement to learning in story form

-can be a normalization of queer relationships if included in the text

“The Secret Source: Sexually Explicit Young Adult Literature as an Information Source.” Young Adult Library Services., vol. 4, no. 2, 2006, p. 30.

"Erotic American young adult fiction act as an information source for teenagers or young adults who feel distanced or disenfranchised by the clinical language of sex education in schools. Sexually explicit novels provide details of sexual intercourse, and the emotional component of intimacy. Young adult literature has the potential to influence the sexual identity development of the youth. Most of the erotic literature for adolescents has been challenged by censors and is passed over in favor of less controversial reading materials in library collections."

Estes, Michelle. ““If There’s One Benefit, You’Re Not Going to Get Pregnant”: the Sexual Mis Education of Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Individuals.” Sex Roles, vol. 77, no. 9, 2017, pp. 615–627.

-Despite growing attention to gay and lesbian concerns, today’s current sex education curriculum in schools and families is still centered upon heterosexuality.

-discuss sex education commonly within a heterosexual context, largely ignores perspective of LGBT people

-LGB young adults experience sex education, wether at home, school or through their own research that is heterosexually centers, lacks basic health and behavior information

-study findings illustrate importance of providing sexual information that covers a wide variety of demographics

-today's current sex education courses are still centered around heternormativity

-Sex education programs frequently are scrutinized by parents and/or school administration (Elliott 2012) for the subject matter they cover, and attempts to address lesbian, gay, and bisexual issues often face even more challenges from parents, school boards, or politicians

-excluding these topics also perpetuates the invisibility of lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) adolescents along with reproducing heterosexism and homophobia

-Irrespective of sexual orientation, participants experience a lack of direct conversations related to sex

-Sexual discussion that do take place are heterosexually focused

-Parents exhibit an overall lack of knowledge related to same-sex sexual topics

-School-based sex education is largely abstinence based

-School-based sex education excludes LGB individuals

-Participants educate themselves on sexual topics through various LGB internet sites

-participants describe joining groups designed explicitly for LGB individuals, which aren't typically offered at school

Gegenfurtner, and Gebhardt. “Sexuality Education Including Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Issues in Schools.” Educational Research Review, vol. 22, 2017, pp. 215–222.

-psychological and sociological research signals that heteronormativity, homosexuality non-acceptance, and negative attitudes toward LGBT people in general are associated with lower levels of education

-For at-risk sexual minority students who show gender nonconforming and gender atypical behavior, schools can create a safe climate and protect adolescent health if they succeed in reducing homophobic and transphobic discrimination

-in schools, a heteronormative culture can have devastating effects on the motivation, health, and learning outcomes of sexual minority students

-Opponents of inclusive sexuality education sometimes argue that parents lose control over what their children learn in school. The claim is that inclusive sexuality education forces a particular view on children, a view that might stand in contrast to the political and/or religious views lived in their respective families. Behind this claim lies the belief that being lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender is immoral, abnormal, or unnatural

-This is a consistent and stable pattern of findings across a range of national, racial, and cultural contexts: Tolerance and acceptance toward sexual minorities were reported to be more positive when people are more highly educated and less religious

-Schools can lessen these negative outcomes for sexual minority students if they succeed in creating a safe school climate that is positively associated with diversity in human sexuality

Addressing Social Determinants of Health among LGBTQ Latinx Young Adults

Latino(a) youth and young adult men who have sex with men or who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, and/or transgender often face stigma, discrimination, and language barriers that prevent them from accessing prevention and treatment at health care centers, and leaving them vulnerable to high rates of HIV and other health disparities.

https://www.lgbthealtheducation.org/topic/lgbt-poc/

Optimizing Linkage, Engagement, and Retention in HIV Care for Adolescents and Young Adults of Color

disproportionate impact that HIV has on youth of color

Boston youth into HIV care, description on how social justice focused structural change can aid LGBT people of color

https://www.lgbthealtheducation.org/topic/lgbt-poc/

HIV/AIDS. (2018, November 19). Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/basics/statistics.html

https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/basics/statistics.html

A 2018 CDC study has maintained that latino and black youth and young adult meant who have sex with other men often face stigma, discrimination, and language barriers that hinder their ability to access STD education, prevention, and treatment. As a result, they are vulnerable to high rates of HIV and other health disparities. In 2017, African Americans accounted for 43% of all new HIV diagnoses. Additionally, Hispanic/Latinos are also strongly affected. They accounted for 26% of all new HIV diagnoses.In 2017, gay and bisexual men accounted for 66% of all HIV diagnoses in the United States and 6 dependent areas.a In the same year, individuals who got HIV infection through heterosexual sex made up 24% of all HIV diagnoses.

Ayala, G., Bingham, T., Kim, J., Wheeler, D. P., & Millett, G. A. (2012). Modeling the Impact of Social Discrimination and Financial Hardship on the Sexual Risk of HIV Among Latino and Black Men Who Have Sex With Men. American Journal of Public Health, 102(S2). doi:10.2105/ajph.2011.300641

https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2011.300641

Oster AM, Russell K, Wiegand RE, Valverde E, Forrest DW, et al. (2013) HIV Infection and Testing among Latino Men Who Have Sex with Men in the United States: The Role of Location of Birth and Other Social Determinants. PLOS ONE 8(9): e73779. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0073779

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/citation?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0073779

Levy, M. E., Wilton, L., Phillips, G., Glick, S. N., Kuo, I., Brewer, R. A., . . . Magnus, M. (2014). Understanding Structural Barriers to Accessing HIV Testing and Prevention Services Among Black Men Who Have Sex with Men (BMSM) in the United States. AIDS and Behavior, 18(5), 972-996. doi:10.1007/s10461-014-0719-x

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10461-014-0719-x

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigationJump to searchPoster carried in a gay pride march in Portland, Maine

LGBT sex education refers to sex education programs within schools, universities, or community centers that address prominent sexual health topics among LGBT groups. Within schools, topics on LGBT sexual health are usually integrated into the general sex education courses (alongside heterosexual topics). However, there is some debate about whether LGBT sex education should be included in sex education curricula. Advocates of LGBT sex education say that the inclusion of LGBT issues into sex education programs would reduce homophobic bullying, improve the health of LGBT people, and decrease instances of problems common in LGBT students such as depression and low self-esteem; opponents argue that LGBT sex education programs would force a political point of view on students, misuse tax money, and disrespect religious values. As of 2014, only 5% of middle and high school students in the United States reported receiving "positive discussions of LGBT-related topics" within their health classes.

• 1Background
  • 1.1Coverage of LGBT sex education
  • 1.2Ineffective programs
  • 1.3Teachers
• 2Proposed LGBT sex education programs
• 3Support for LGBT sex education
• 4Opposition to LGBT sex education
  • 4.1Opposition within the United States
• 5Laws and legal battles
  • 5.1Section 28
  • 5.2Croatian textbook
• 6See also
• 7References

LGBT sex education is currently not covered in many schools. Research has also posited that students often don’t find existing LGBT sex education programs to be effective.^[1]Teachers have differing views on the LGBT topics, and these personal opinions can impact sex education for lesbian, gay bisexual, and transgendered students when implemented. This is a problem because a majority of HIV cases reported are homosexual men^[2], and lesbian and bisexual teenagers have an high risk of becoming pregnant.

Multiple studies have concluded that LGBT sex education is often not encompassed in school sex education courses and that most students do not receive effective instruction in LGBT sex issues. In a study conducted by Ellis and High in the UK (2004), 384 students were surveyed; they found that 24% had not received instruction in LGBT sex issues. The CDC Division of Adolescent and School Health’s study revealed that 48% of schools in the US covered LGBT topics. According to research reported by Burston and Hart in 2001, 45% of surveyed students believed that they did not cover LGBT sex education sufficiently in school. Research has also shown that there can be an implicit assumption that all students are heterosexual in sex education classes. The LGBT students in Eleanor Formby’s 2011 study of sex education said that they do not always feel welcomed by sex education classes or at school. Sex education courses commonly idealize marriage (not acknowledging that many countries outlaw same-sex marriage) thereby presenting a heterosexual view of sex and relationships as normal. Studies have suggested that sex education programs often do not cover safe sex practices for LGBT individuals.

[However, there are some sex education curricula that do cover LGBT issues. For example, the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations provides a sex education program called Our Whole Lives, which includes discussion of sexual orientation and presents homosexuality and heterosexuality as equally valid. Our Whole Lives offers programs designed for a range of developmental stages, from Kindergarten-level through adulthood, and follows the "Guidelines for Comprehensive Sexuality Education" that the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) endorses. The United Church of Christ also supports Our Whole Lives. (MOVE TO PROPOSED PROGRAMS)]

Research has also illustrated that some sex education courses present LGBT issues in a negative light—portraying LGBT individuals and LGBT sexuality as something wrong, sick, and abnormal. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, “Abstinence-only” approaches to sex education can also be alienating to LGBT students because these programs assume that marriage is a possibility and a desire for all students; however, same-sex marriage is illegal in many countries. Further, promoting marriage as the goal for LGBT students reproduces a homonormative standard, marginalizing those without access to or interest in marriage. Ellis and High’s survey research in 2004 (including 384 students) revealed that 59% of young people who did receive LGBT sex education found it to be ineffective.

Many current sexual education programs are also focused mainly on heterosexual relationships. ^[3] These programs often teach the dangers of sex rather than focusing on the health and behavior standards that should be present in healthy relationships. These programs focus on topics such as pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseased while avoiding the subjects of contraception or other sexual orientations. The omission of these topics can lead to LGBT students feeling ostracized while not fully educating any of the students about safe sex practices. ^[3]

Teachers have been identified as a hindrance to LGBT sex education in some studies. Many teachers have their own opinions about homosexuality, and, according to these studies, if teachers have negative views toward LGBT individuals this can come through in their teaching—causing LGBT students to feel unaccepted and unsafe. According to Ellis and High (2004), when LGBT students receive information about LGBT sexuality with negative undertones they are left feeling significantly worse and more unsafe than if homosexuality were left out of the curriculum. Researchers have documented multiple self-proclaimed "LGBT-friendly" teachers whose classrooms actually foster prejudiced lessons. Such teachers are also highly likely to ignore instances of homophobic bullying directed at LGBT youth within their classes. Burston and Hart (2001) reported that teachers sometimes believe that they should not take a side on the issue of homosexuality, and therefore should not interfere when homophobia occurs in the classroom. According to Formby (2011), even phrasing that subtly casts homosexuality in a negative light can have a detrimental effect on LGBT students’ experience of sex education.

There have also been issues around teachers feeling free to teach sex education that equally emphasizes both heterosexual and homosexual health information. Deana Morrow’s study (1993) reported that some teachers said they were afraid they might be fired if they discussed LGBT issues. This fear is linked to the historical misconnection of homosexuality to molestation in the United States; this supposedly natural linkage has been debunked multiple times.Regardless, straight and LGBT teachers alike still experience allegations of molestation when they engage in discussions surrounding sexuality, particularly those discussions that are LGBT related. Teachers can also feel hindered because the school environment is inhospitable to homosexuality; in Burston and Hart’s 2001 study, some even said that they were under the impression that the school would not allow them to teach LGBT sex education.

Classmates can also be unreceptive toward LGBT issues in current sex education courses, and students are often hesitant to talk about homosexuality, according to Buston and Hart (2001). The rainbow heart symbolizes LGB relationships

Since sex education has been present in health education in schools, many parents expect their children to learn about sex there. ^[3] Studies show that most families do not engage in conversation about sex in the home, and when they do it is often from a heternormative perspective.^[3] The assumptions of being heterosexual can make LGBT people feel ashamed or lacking support from their family. Lack of conversation and knowledge received in the home for LGBT people can often lead them to receive their information for outside sources.

Advocates for LGBT sex education have suggested adjustments to current sex education practices in schools. One common place for improvement that researchers have identified is the angle from which sex education is approached in general. Buston and Hart (2001), Ellis and High (2004), and others have recommended that teachers frame sex education in terms of relationships rather than merely reproduction, which can lead to the exclusion of LGBT students. Ellis and High mention that sexual orientation might be more appropriately taught as “an aspect of culture and identity” (Ellis and High 2004, pg. 11). Other researchers such as Morrow (1993) believe that in order for sex education to be effective, it must present LGB as just as natural and legitimate as heterosexuality. Advocates for LGBT sex education ask that LGBT sexual health issues be given equal weight in the curriculum accordingly. They also say that more resources concerning LGBT sexual health issues need to be made available to students. According to UCLA's Center for the Study of Women’s Policy Brief 11 (2012), LBGT students may not be willing to reach out for guidance themselves.

Researchers have recommended that teachers in sex education programs avoid framing homosexuality as something that is fundamentally connected to sexually transmitted diseases and refrain from practices that are potentially detrimental to LGBT students, such as referring to partners as specifically “him” or “her” (better to use the more flexible “they”). Gowen and Winges-Yanez (2014) suggest through their focus groups on LGBT teens that there are several problems with the way sex education is taught. The teens cited silencing, heterocentricity, and pathologizing of LGBT individuals as common practices. When asked how they would improve sex education, the group said inclusive sex education would include discussion of LGBT issues, learning how to access resources, STIprevention, relationships, and anatomy. Advocates for LGBT rights also say that teachers need to abandon any reluctance to take a side in the debate about homosexuality.

*There are also alternative sexual education programs for LGBT people, such as that of an online sexual education course^[2]. According to a study evaluating the effectiveness of an online, interactive sexual education program for LGBT people, all subsections recorded statistically significant improvement of knowledge.^[2] Some of the topics included safe sex practices, healthy relationships, pleasure and sexually transmitted infections. This type of program also created an online community for people taking the course to ask questions and interact with each other. This social aspect of the program also created a sense of normalcy and acceptance. Online programs couldoffer a meansof education for those who cannot receive it in school.*

*An informal means of sexual education that some teenagers have turned to is literature.*

Proponents of incorporating LGBT sex education into school curricula commonly present several arguments. According to the Huffington Post, some supporters claim that failing to include LGBT issues in sex education programs will overlook a significant number of students who identify as LGBT. The Center for American Progress (CAP) says that this can cause them to feel marginalized and removed from the lesson because it doesn’t pertain to them. LGBT sex education advocates also argue that leaving LGBT safe sex instruction out of the curriculum will increase the likelihood of health problems for LGBT students. Supporters say that since LGBT people are particularly at risk for HIV/AIDS, it is especially important to provide them with sexual health information. According to researcher Eleanor Formby (2011), lesbian women are a high-risk group for sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), because many do not know that they can be susceptible to STDs or how to engage in safe sex. Therefore, it is important that they receive lesbian sex education (reword?). LGBT sex education advocates suggest that because LGBT students aren’t taught sex education that pertains to them in school, they feel unprepared for sex, unable to talk about it openly, and have to learn about it by themselves—which can result in negative health outcomes. Sanchez (2012) argues that LGBT students are unlikely to reach out to resources that could give them good information on their own, which furthers the need for LGBT sex education in schools. Parade attendees wave rainbow flags at the 2012 Washington, D.C. Capital Pride parade LGBT sex education supporters have also argued that the inclusion of LGBT topics in the curriculum can decrease instances of bullying in schools by familiarizing students with the range of sexual orientations and reducing harmful stereotypes. The Center for American Progress argues that LGBT sex education results in a decrease in homophobic comments. According to the Huffington Post, supporters say that educating young people about LGBT individuals could help them have a more positive attitude toward their gay peers. The Center for American Progress (2013) says that LGBT sex education would therefore reduce common problems LGBT students face as a result of negative attitudes; these include mental health issues like depression, the risk of suicide, drug abuse, self-esteem issues, and poorer academic performance due to stress caused by discrimination. They argue that covering homosexuality in sex education programs helps students feel more secure at school.

According to Jen Gilbert, associate professor of education at York University, LGBT kids often do not have queer parents who they can ask for sexuality-related advice, nor access to LGBT adults. LGBT sex education could potentially fill this gap and provide LGBT students with elders well-versed in their specific needs and equipped with affirming information, that students are otherwise unable to receive at home or in school.

Finally, proponents of LGBT sex education have said that curricula that explore all facets of sexuality would be beneficial to straight students as well, because they claim that it presents a more accurate picture of the world and human sexuality. A study of Gay/Straight Alliances in Utah found that peer-facilitated discussions concerning the spectrum of sexuality and gender identities benefitted both straight and LGBT students. It exposed them to the reality of relationships outside of the heteronormative images that dominate media (as well as sex education), and even positively impacted all involved students' academic performance. Proponents also argue that offering LGBT-inclusive sex education can be of major assistance to any questioning students that might be in the class.

According to the Center for American Progress (2013), the majority of parents support including homosexuality in the sex education curriculum; they report that 73% of high school parents think LGBT issues should be taught. The CAP claims that this high percentage of support indicates that LGBT topics should be incorporated.

Opponents of LGBT sex education argue that it is wrong to teach students about the issue of homosexuality because it is too contentious. They say that parents should have control over what their children are exposed to and taught, and allowing public schools to cover LGBT sex education would undermine this right, forcing a particular political view on students. According to the Christian Post, some parents do not want their children to study homosexuality. Critics often cite a misuse of citizens' tax dollars; claiming citizens' should not have to pay for children to learn about other lifestyles that their parents do not agree with.

According to Formby (2011), opponents have also argued that LGBT sex education is harmful to students because they say it exposes them to damaging information. They claim that the students should not learn about LGBT issues until they are older. Some opponents of LGBT sex education have argued that including LGBT issues in sex education programs will encourage more young people to practice homosexuality as well. LGBT sex education has also been accused of being disrespectful to certain families’ religious beliefs. The Christian Post argued that if schools elect to teach about LGBT people while neglecting religious topics, the curriculum would be unfairly balanced.

There have also been concerns that LGBT sex education wouldn’t be effective because it is difficult for homophobic students to accept homosexuality, which may prevent them from being receptive to the instruction.

Four states (Alabama, South Carolina, Texas, Utah) mandate pointedly negative messages regarding all LGBT identities, when sex education is provided. Eight states prohibit discussion of any topics deemed LGBT-related.According to the Guttmacher Institute's findings in 2017, "If HIV education is taught in Arizona it cannot "promote" a "homosexual lifestyle" or portray homosexuality in a positive manner. Mandated HIV education in Oklahoma teaches that among other behaviors that 'homosexual activity' is considered to be 'responsible for contact with the AIDS virus'."

Main article: Section 28

Section 28 was a controversial law in the United Kingdom that barred schools from presenting homosexuality as a viable sexual orientation or basis for relationships (though the law was never used in court). It was enacted in 1988 and repealed throughout the UK by 2003. Critics of Section 28 say that the law prevented teachers from intervening in instances of homophobic bullying and greatly hindered the development of gay rights in Great Britain. According to Moran (2001), proponents of the law argued that it protected students from being harmed by gay propaganda. Recently, LGBT advocates have raised concerns that policies similar to Section 28 are appearing again in British schools.

In 2009, the European Committee of Social Rights found several statements in a Croatian mandatory Biology course textbook, including: “Many individuals are prone to sexual relations with persons of the same sex…. It is believed that parents are to blame because they impede their children’s correct sexual development with their irregularities in family relations. Nowadays it has become evident that homosexual relations are the main culprit for increased spreading of sexually transmitted diseases (e.g. AIDS),” and “The disease [AIDS] has spread amongst promiscuous groups of people who often change their sexual partners. Such people are homosexuals because of sexual contacts with numerous partners, drug addicts...and prostitutes.” The European Committee of Social Rights deemed these statements discriminatory and in violation of Croatia's obligations under the European Social Charter.

A 2018 CDC study has maintained that latino and black youth and young adult men who have sex men often face stigma, discrimination, and language barriers that hinder their ability to access STD education, prevention, and treatment. As a result, they are vulnerable to high rates of HIV and other health disparities. In 2017, African Americans accounted for 43% of all new HIV diagnoses. Additionally, Hispanic/Latinos are also strongly affected. They accounted for 26% of all new HIV diagnoses.In 2017, gay and bisexual men accounted for 66% of all HIV diagnoses in the United States and 6 dependent areas.^[4]

• Sex education in the United States
• LGBT
• Adolescent sexuality
• LGBT and religion topics
• LGBT rights by country or territory
• LGBT social movements
• Sexual revolution
• Social conservatism
• Queer migration
• Comprehensive sex education#Inclusive ways of delivering CSE

• Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
  • Some of the article content is relevant, and even goes as far as exploring the specific health issues within the subgroups of the LGBT community. (people of color)
  • A study revealing issues affecting LGBT people generally seemed to be sourced from the UK, whereas this article should've considered other parts of the world, or areas that specifically have a higher concentrations of LGBT citizens.
• Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
  • Information seems somewhat out of date; most sources date back at least five years. One source dates back almost two decades ago (2001). As a result, many of the sources do not consider the significant improvements for LGBT people in healthcare such as the FDA approval of Truvada, an HIV preventative drug.
• What else could be improved?
  • The article mainly discusses the LGBT community as a whole, with slightly less consideration for people of color, and those from low income households.

• Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • The article's tone seems very objective, and it seems like most or all of the argument is taken from a statistical standpoint. However, many of the studies show
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • People of color, low income groups, people with disabilities within the the LGBT community. Other subgroups or letters of the LGBT acronym that aren't discussed at all within the article. (such as QIA+)

• Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
  • The links for the most part all seem to function correctly. However, several sources seem outdated by at last five years to a decade.
• Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
  • One source from the UK was used to demonstrate the issues that affect general populations of the LGBT community, where the article should addressed more locations around the globe, specifically in areas with high rates of HIV infection, etc.

• LGBT Academic Success in STEM (new article)
  1. Experience for LGBT students in STEM, their access to resources, and their likelihood to succeed within higher education and employment.
  2. Climate for LGBT students within STEM majors
  3. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineeringhttp://www.dl.begellhouse.com/journals/00551c876cc2f027,761a7b37493b2d86,6fe4cda94f55abdf.html

• Racism in the LGBT community (stub class article)
  1. Cycles of racial oppression within the LGBT community in the workplace and higher education.
  2. LGBT white individuals are more likely to succeed than LGBT people of color.
  3. http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2011-10497-005

• LGBT sex education (stub class article)
  1. Sex/Health Education for LGBT students.
  2. Correlation between sex education and likelihood of contracting Sexually Transmitted Diseases.
  3. Structural factors that lead to different medical treatment for LGBT people.
  4. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=ue7cZs-kz3IC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=%C2%A0LGBT+Sex+Education&ots=PSDn4INlVq&sig=n9WJvVfHsgDjUo5V_dPxYmkTaM8#v=onepage&q=%C2%A0LGBT%20Sex%20Education&f=false

LGBT Sex Education (stub class article)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_sex_education

The wikipedia article fails to address sex education among people of color. LGBT sex education is covered through a normalized white lens.

Some potential sub topics to consider might include:

History of LGBT Sex Education/Programs

1. History of LGBT education among marginalized communities such as:
   1. NYC, India, Chicago, Miami, Pakistan etc
2. Investigation of cities or countries with known sex trade of Transwomen, Gay Men, etc.
3. Education on HIV and AIDS during the 1980s among LGBT groups

Among ethnic minorities

1. Gay black males, Transgender Women of Color, for example, are far more likely to contract HIV
2. Lack of education for certain groups within LGBT community
3. Likelihood of Prostitution

Medicalization and Treatment of LGBT people

1. Treatment of LGBT people during medical procedures
2. Sexualization of health concerns in medical offices

Current Sex Education Programs

1. Are condoms provided?
2. Availability of PREP or Truvada
3. Health Insurance Programs and Accessibility

Collaboration with Kelli Wightman

This is a user sandbox of Elicordova. You can use it for testing or practicing edits. This is not the sandbox where you should draft your assigned article for a dashboard.wikiedu.org course. To find the right sandbox for your assignment, visit your Dashboard course page and follow the Sandbox Draft link for your assigned article in the My Articles section. Get Help