‘Why? And how?’ Translating queer theologies of sex education

Abstract

This paper engages with two overarching questions: why is engaging with queer theologies potentially valuable for sex education, and how can we carry out this kind of work without rendering sex education an expression of queer theological commitment? In responding to the first of these questions, I argue that working with queer theologies can offer sex education researchers another way of thinking about, and with, theology -one that resists positioning theology as inevitably heteronormative through its attention to the body, embraces the multiple possibilities of queer subjecthood, and attends to the importance of context in understanding how heteronormativity is both reproduced and resisted. Following this, I turn to the second question animating this paper, suggesting that if we are to avoid sex education sliding into an inevitable expression of queer theological commitment, what is needed is a methodology for the translation for sex education research, in which queer theologies can 'meet' with sex education without at the same time 'merging' with it. I demonstrate how this might be enacted through the symbol of the 'Abrahamic threesome', a queer symbolic device of my own design.

Sexuality education and religion: From dialogue to conversation

“…This appeal to theology and religion as a basis for engaging in educational work that is affirming of sexual and gender diversity has echoes in the scholarship of Kamrudin (2018), Nadar and van Klinken (2018), Seedat (2018) and Yip (2018), all of whom have reflected on the possibilities of integrating LGBTQ+ religious perspectives and traditions in the context of higher and adult/community‐based religious education settings. Herriot and Callaghan (2019), Henry (2018, 2020, 2021, 2022), Burke (2021) and Davis (2021) have similarly pointed to the queer and trans‐inclusive resources available to (sex) education from within particular theological and religious traditions, while Heyes (2022) has offered broader reflections on the synergies between sexuality education and various conceits of political theology. Finally, Mirvis (2018) has pointed to the growth in inclusive guidance on sexuality education for Orthodox Jewish schools, while others like Blum (2010) have emphasised how the internal diversity of Islam allows for more spacious, less antagonistic, approaches to sexuality to emerge.…”