Search

Organization of spaces in schools often revolves around gender and sexuality. For example, it has been reported that restrooms and locker rooms are the most heteronormative and heterosexist spaces within schools. Particularly within these spaces, hegemonic heterosexual masculinity/femininity is institutionalized, not only in the practices and individual performances, but also in the organization of these spaces. In that sense, the space of the restroom and the locker room is regulated and constructed on the basis of gender binaries, and as such, inscribes disciplinary power on those gendered bodies that do not conform to the hegemonic gender regime. For trans/transgender students and other gender-nonconforming students, these spaces have been experienced as hostile and problematic. The paper draws on ethnographic data from two Icelandic high schools and has the aim of moving the discussion about gender divided spaces (restrooms and locker/changing rooms) outside the sole emphasis on gender binaries by incorporating into the analysis identity categories based on sexuality and trans/transgender/gender-queer embodiment.

The Nordic countries have often been depicted as progressive societies regarding sexual diversity and gender equality. These progressive changes in sexual minority issues, however, have not brought about radical changes in educational policies in addressing gender and sexual equality in schools. Both compulsory and upper secondary education often lack coherent protection of queer students. The same applies to specific policies on queer issues within the education system; they are hidden in the depths of many national curricula. In fact, a discrepancy exists in broader social policies supporting equality based on sexual orientation in the educational context. The main objective of this article is to investigate this discrepancy and justify it. In doing so, we will discuss in detail the educational policies and practices on sexualities currently operating in the Nordic area, particularly in Finland and Iceland. We analyse curricula documents, legislation, research reports, and other data from our own research projects, including ethnographic interviews, observation data, survey data, and written material.

The purpose of this article is analysis of discursive marginalisation through education in Nordic welfare states. What knowledge do Nordic research discourses produce about marginalisation through education in Nordic welfare states? What are the Nordic contributions to research discourses on marginalisation through education? We apply a discourse theoretical approach and analyse 109 peer-reviewed publications on marginalisation by the Nordic Centre of Excellence "Justice through education in the Nordic countries" (NCoE JustEd) between 2013 and 2017. The publications are from Finland, Sweden, Norway and Iceland. Four critical Nordic research discourses reconceptualise marginalisation in relation to dominant educational discourses on marketisation, Eurocentrism, gender equity and ableism. These Nordic research discourses document discursive effects of the dominant, normalising discourses in terms of stigma, segregation and exclusion of poor, working-class students, non-white and immigrant students and descendants of immigrants, as well as sexual minorities and disabled students. Based on ethical, epistemological and methodological considerations, the critical Nordic research discourses produce knowledge about marginalisation as a relational, intersectional and interdiscursive phenomenon. The critical Nordic research discourses de- and reconstruct knowledge about marginalisation in Nordic welfare states.

In this paper, we study how Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender people (LGBT) students in Icelandic upper secondary schools interpret their experience of heteronormative environment and how they respond to it. The aim is to explore how sexualities and gendered bodies are constructed through "schooling". The article draws on interview data with seven LGBT students who attended five different upper secondary schools. We also use visual data collected during fieldwork at one upper secondary school and exemplify the results with a poster and a digitalised short-film, produced by the students, to substantiate what participants told us in the interviews. All of the students experienced heteronormative discourse and lack of respect and indicated that they did not feel fully accepted in school. Upon entering the classroom, the visibility of LGBTs and discussion about different performances of gender and sexuality seem to disappear, whether in terms of textbooks, course content, teaching practices and school environment. Furthermore, LGBTs and those who do not conform to the hegemonic performances of gender are often constructed as deviations from the norm, strange, and even depicted as the abjected other. This applies in particular to the informal school, which embraces the traditions, culture and social interactions among students and teachers. This othering occurs, despite relatively positive attitudes towards LGBT people in Icelandic society in general. The results signify a gap between policy and practice as regards the positioning of LBGT students, which affects their schooling and well-being.

The concept of space is gaining increased attention in studies of sexuality and gender, not least those focusing on heterosexism and heteronormativity. Such studies have demonstrated that space is sexualised, gendered and actively produced. In this article, we present the findings from an ethnographic study of two Icelandic upper secondary schools. One is a traditional academic school in Reykjavík (the capital city) and the other is a mixture of a vocational and an academic school, located in a small urban community in the northern part of the country. In addition to the ethnographic component of the research, five former and current lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) students from the two schools were interviewed. We describe how different spaces are constructed through the discourse of heterosexuality and hegemonic gender performances. In doing so, we focus on the processes of inclusion, exclusion and queering of different spaces, and the interplay of these processes in constructing sexuality and gender. The findings indicate that the spaces observed, which are depicted in this article as three stories, included and excluded both LGBT students and other students who did not conform to the dominant norms. These same spaces were also a platform for various queering activities, where alternative discourses could be established and even disturb the dominant discourse of heterosexuality and normativity, whether in terms of gender performances or bodily appearances.

How does institutionalized heterosexism manifest itself in Icelandic upper secondary schools and how do lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) students respond to these manifestations? In addressing these questions, interviews were conducted with six current and former LGBT upper secondary school students, using queer theory and thematic analysis. It is argued that institutionalized heterosexism prevails in the structure and culture of the schools under investigation, although to varying degrees. LGBT youth experienced institutionalized heterosexism daily in their dealings with faculty and fellow students. The LGBT students who were interviewed responded to the oppressive nature of institutionalized heterosexism in various ways. Some tried to resist the system actively while others did so more subtly. In general, their stories can be interpreted as having destabilizing effects on the heterosexual system.