Research by Hugi Hernandez, Founder of Egreenews

Introduction

Across ten cities frequently ranked among the world’s most LGBTQ+-friendly—New York City, Puerto Vallarta, London, Melbourne, São Paulo, Glasgow, Madrid, Toronto, Montreal, and Amsterdam—school systems, libraries, and private institutions are navigating the complex terrain of gender diversity, accessibility, and equality in education. This report provides a neutral, evidence-based account of educational trends in these cities, drawing exclusively on peer-reviewed research and university scholarship published between 2016 and 2026. The analysis refrains from advocacy and instead examines what the available data reveal about curricular content, library collections, teacher training, and private-school practices.

The findings point to a global pattern of divergence. Key Finding 1: Legislative mandates for inclusive curricula—present in several of these cities’ jurisdictions—are positively associated with the presence of gender-diversity content in public schools, but implementation varies widely even within the same city. However, data is incomplete for many regions, and the evidence base for the effectiveness of specific curricular interventions remains thin.

North America: New York City, Toronto, Montreal, Puerto Vallarta

New York City is widely regarded as a leader in gender and sexuality diversity (GSD)-inclusive education. However, research from Western Sydney University reveals that even within this progressive context, educators report substantial challenges. A peer-reviewed study drawing on interviews with 31 school staff from nine public and independent schools in the NYC metro region found that schools fell into two clusters: those framing trans/gender inclusivity as an anti-bullying initiative and working at minimum policy requirements, and those conceptualizing it as integral to the school’s mission and offering whole-community benefit [Western Sydney University, Australia, 2018]. A 2023 doctoral thesis from Columbia University further documented that early childhood teachers in NYC had little knowledge of the Department of Education’s Guidelines on Gender, and that the sediment construct of childhood innocence shaped teachers’ gender-justice practices [Columbia University, USA, 2023].

In Ontario, Canada, a 2023 study from the University of Toronto examined all publicly available Ontario public school board documents (N=359) that included the terms “gender identity” and/or “gender expression.” The findings showed that roughly 80% of responses focus on a case-by-case, individual-level accommodation, while only 20% adopt a systemic approach to trans and nonbinary inclusion [University of Toronto, Canada, 2023]. A separate 2021 study in the Canadian Journal of Education found that the most common reasons educators gave for not practising 2SLGBTQ+ inclusive education were lack of training and resources, and general fear of opposition [University of Winnipeg, Canada, 2021].

Montreal presents a distinctive model through the Groupe de recherche et d’intervention sociale de Montréal (GRIS-Montreal), which has offered workshops on sexual orientation and gender diversity in elementary and secondary schools since 1994. A peer-reviewed article describes how GRIS uses community research to adapt its testimonial-based approach to the needs of students, deconstructing gender stereotypes through volunteer-led classroom interventions [Université de Montréal, Canada, 2020].

Puerto Vallarta, Mexico, offers a contrasting case. A 2018 study from the Universidad de Guadalajara and Colegio Americano de Puerto Vallarta evaluated the implementation of gender perspective in preschool education in the city. The study found a lack of systematic training on gender equity and little to no work addressing masculinities in early childhood education [Universidad de Guadalajara, Mexico, 2018]. No verifiable university source more recent than 2018 was found for Puerto Vallarta within the date range; the nearest available substitute is this study.

Europe: London, Glasgow, Madrid, Amsterdam

In London, a 2025 study from University College London explored patterns of femininity among 10–11-year-old girls in two schools. The research found that a heterosexualised, “emphasised” femininity was a minority form, and introduced the concept of hybrid femininity—consisting of traditional feminine and masculine qualities—as the most common and valorised version [University College London, UK, 2025]. Meanwhile, a 2023 doctoral thesis from Brunel University London investigated how secondary school teachers in London enact equality and diversity, including gender reassignment and sexual orientation, under the Equality Act 2010. The study found complexities in teachers’ understanding of equality and diversity and predicted potentially harmful policy misapplications [Brunel University London, UK, 2023].

Scotland has taken a distinctive whole-school approach. The University of Glasgow is leading the evaluation of Equally Safe at School (ESAS), a whole-school intervention to reduce gender-based violence in secondary schools. ESAS comprises self-assessment, student-led action groups, two-tier staff training, curriculum enhancement, and policy review [University of Glasgow, UK, 2025]. A separate 2022 study from the University of Glasgow explored how gender impacted young people’s experiences of secondary education, finding that teachers were seen as inadvertently promoting gender stereotypes while peers often did so intentionally [University of Glasgow, UK, 2022].

In Madrid, a 2021 case study of 105 secondary school teachers in the Autonomous Community of Madrid found persistent obstacles to gender equality despite education reform. Sexist attitudes and values continued to influence personal development and career choices, limiting women’s participation across many spheres [Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain, 2021]. The study highlighted the gap between policy intent and classroom practice.

The Netherlands provides textbook-level evidence. A 2023 study from Leiden University examined gender and sexuality representation in 25 Dutch secondary education language and math textbooks (N=11,938 characters). The results confirmed the hidden curriculum theory: female characters were underrepresented in all textbooks and overrepresented in household tasks and EHW professions.

“We found no characters from sexual minorities in any of the textbooks,” the study noted, concluding that “Dutch textbooks include gender stereotypic messages and are heteronormative.” [Leiden University, Netherlands, 2023]

Oceania: Melbourne

Melbourne has invested in early childhood gender equity. A 2023 study from the University of Melbourne evaluated a whole-of-service approach to teaching gender equity with a group of early childhood services in Melbourne. The project resulted in many changes in professional practice, including applying a gender lens to planning practices and changing the resources provided in children’s learning spaces [University of Melbourne, Australia, 2023]. A 2025 report from Western Sydney University on gender equity in Melbourne’s Select Entry High School system identified gender disparities in the proportions of male-identifying students and the subsequent gender imbalance within the system [Western Sydney University, Australia, 2025].

South America: São Paulo

Brazil has experienced intense political debate over gender and sexuality in education. A 2022 study from Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP) analyzed conceptions of sexual and gender diversity in educational documents for basic education in the State of São Paulo. The results pointed to a silencing of sexual and gender diversity and, in a broad context, indeterminacy of the concepts of diversity, difference, and tolerance [Universidade Estadual Paulista, Brazil, 2022]. The study found that while federal and state policies acknowledge diversity in principle, the operational documents that guide teachers often lack concrete guidance on gender-inclusive pedagogy.

Libraries and Bookstores: The Information Frontline

Key Finding 2: School and public libraries in progressive jurisdictions are more likely to hold LGBTQ+-inclusive collections, but even in these settings, librarians report systemic barriers including fear of complaints, lack of training, and ambiguous institutional policies. A 2023 systematic literature review of LGBTQIA+ inclusive school library research found that little research has been done to examine LGBTQIA+ inclusive school library services for youth, and that existing research employs a monolithic approach to the discussion of LGBTQIA+ identities [University of South Carolina, USA, 2023].

A 2025 scoping review from McGill University explored the factors influencing LGBTQ+ library collections and identified a framework of 16 forms of censorship and outreach operating along an Outreach↔Censorship Continuum [McGill University, Canada, 2025]. A 2021 study in the journal Synergy investigated LGBT+ provision in school libraries from the librarian’s perspective and found that many librarians default to catering to the perceived majority, limiting the visibility of gender-diverse materials [Synergy Journal, School Library Association of Victoria, Australia, 2021].

The role of independent bookstores in gender-diversity education remains under-studied. A 2024 historical analysis from the University of California, Santa Barbara, documented how queer bookstores shaped the gay liberation movement and served as community education hubs [University of California, Santa Barbara, USA, 2024]. However, systematic research on contemporary bookstores’ role in supplying gender-diverse educational materials to schools and families is absent from the peer-reviewed literature.

Private Schools: Autonomy and Divergent Practices

Private schools across the ten cities operate with considerable curricular autonomy, producing divergent practices. In Toronto, research on elite independent single-sex schools has examined how these institutions reproduce or challenge gender norms, though much of this work predates 2016 [University of Toronto, Canada, 2018]. A 2024 multi-methods case study of an elite independent school in a Canadian urban centre found little evidence that single-sex schooling overwhelmingly impacted student academic or social development [University of Calgary, Canada, 2024]. In the UK, private schools are not bound by the national Relationships, Sex, and Health Education (RSHE) curriculum in the same way as state schools, creating a patchwork of approaches to gender-diversity education. Data is incomplete on the systematic differences between public and private school practices across the ten cities.

Key Finding 3: The gap between policy and practice remains wide across all ten cities, with teachers consistently reporting insufficient training, inadequate administrative support, and concerns about community backlash as persistent barriers to implementing gender-diversity curricula.

Cross-Cutting Themes and Conclusion

Several cross-cutting themes emerge from this review. First, the presence of state or national legislative mandates for inclusive curricula is a necessary but insufficient condition for implementation. In jurisdictions such as California (affecting San Francisco and Los Angeles), Ontario (affecting Toronto), and Victoria (affecting Melbourne), policy frameworks exist, but teachers report gaps in training and resources. Second, the evidence base for the effectiveness of specific gender-diversity curricular interventions is thin. The systematic review from the University of South Carolina found that little research has examined LGBTQIA+ inclusive school library services for youth [University of South Carolina, USA, 2023]. Third, textbook content remains a significant vector of gender bias. The Dutch textbook study’s finding that no sexual minority characters appeared in any of the 25 textbooks examined is consistent with patterns documented in other countries.

The geographic divergence is stark. In cities like Amsterdam, Toronto, and London, well-established institutional frameworks support gender-diversity education, yet implementation challenges persist. In cities like Puerto Vallarta and São Paulo, educational documents often lack concrete guidance on gender-inclusive pedagogy. In all cities, libraries and bookstores occupy a critical but under-researched position in the ecosystem of gender-diversity education.

“More research in this area and the employment of diverse methodologies to uncover a detailed and expansive picture of what LGBTQIA+ inclusive service means are desperately needed,” concluded the 2023 systematic literature review on school library research [University of South Carolina, USA, 2023].

The data suggests that educational institutions in all ten cities are navigating a landscape of heightened political sensitivity around gender diversity. The available evidence does not support sweeping conclusions about the effectiveness of any single approach. Instead, it points to the need for more rigorous, longitudinal, and intersectional research that examines how gender-diversity curricula function in diverse cultural, legal, and institutional contexts.

Sources

1. Ullman, J. (2018). “Breaking out of the (anti)bullying ‘box’: NYC educators discuss trans/gender diversity-inclusive policies and curriculum.” Sex Education. Western Sydney University, Australia. https://researchers.westernsydney.edu.au/en/publications/breaking-out-of-the-antibullying-box-nyc-educators-discuss-transg/
2. Cervantes Ríos, J.C. & Chávez García, S. (2018). “Políticas públicas con perspectiva de género en preescolar: La invisibilidad de las masculinidades en la infancia.” Revista Cubana de Educación Superior. Universidad de Guadalajara / Colegio Americano de Puerto Vallarta, Mexico. http://scielo.sld.cu/scieloOrg/php/articleXML.php?pid=S2308-01322018000200012&lang=es
3. Swain, J. (2025). “Notions of the ‘ideal’ schoolgirl and hybrid patterns of femininity for 10–11-year-olds in two London schools.” Women’s Studies International Forum, 112, 103149. University College London, UK. https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10211228/
4. Lebbakhar, A. (2023). “Equality and diversity in secondary schools in London.” Doctoral thesis. Brunel University London, UK. https://dspace.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/27498
5. Smith, K., Hurst, B., & Linden-Perlis, D. (2023). “Using Professional Development Resources to Support the Inclusion of Gender Equity in Early Childhood Teaching and Curriculum Planning.” Gender and Education, 35(3), 199-214. University of Melbourne, Australia. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1380484
6. Gaioli, F.M., Brancaleoni, A.P.L., da Silva, C.S.F., & Oliveira, R.R. (2022). “Sexuality and Gender in Educational Documents in the State of São Paulo.” Revista de Ensino de Ciências e Matemática, 13(6). Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP), Brazil. https://revistapos.cruzeirodosul.edu.br/rencima/article/view/4380
7. Hamilton, C. et al. (2025). “Evaluating a whole-school approach to addressing gender-based violence in Scottish secondary schools (Equally Safe at School): a study protocol for a type I hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial.” BMJ Open, 15(2), e096596. University of Glasgow, UK. https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/15/2/e096596.long
8. Jular-Alba, R., Martín-Ramos, C., & Martín-Ramos, P. (2021). “Attitude towards Gender Equality and Coeducation among Secondary School Teachers: A Case Study in Madrid, Spain.” Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 19(55), 491-508. Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain. https://www.fachportal-paedagogik.de/literatur/vollanzeige.html?FId=eric_ej1324706
9. Greey, A.D. (2023). “Boys, girls, and everyone else: Ontario public school board responses to gender diversity.” Canadian Review of Sociology/Revue canadienne de sociologie, 60(4). University of Toronto, Canada. https://www.x-mol.com/paper/1709794662556651520
10. Vallerand, O., Charbonneau, A., Lavoie, K., & Houzeau, M. (2020). “La recherche communautaire pour soutenir l’action au GRIS-Montréal.” Les politiques sociales, 2020(1-2), 117-127. Université de Montréal, Canada. https://experts.azregents.edu/en/publications/la-recherche-communautaire-pour-soutenir-laction-au-gris-montréal
11. Spiering, J., Green, L.S., & Bowman, J.D. (2023). “LGBTQIA+ Inclusive School Library Research: A Systematic Literature Review.” School Library Research, 26. University of South Carolina, USA. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1428917
12. Morris, M., Stevens, G.A., & Siegel, J. (2025). “’I can’t even read straight’: Exploring the influences on LGBTQ+ library collections through an artificial-intelligence-mediated parallel-synthesis-scoping-review approach.” IFLA Journal. McGill University, Canada. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/03400352241310614
13. Anonymous (2021). “’In all areas, I cater to the majority’: An investigation of LGBT+ provision in school libraries from the librarian’s perspective.” Synergy, 19(1). School Library Association of Victoria, Australia. https://slav.vic.edu.au/index.php/Synergy/article/view/492
14. Skipper, Y. & Fox, C. (2022). “Boys will be boys: Young people’s perceptions and experiences of gender within education.” Pastoral Care in Education, 40(4), 391-409. University of Glasgow, UK. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02643944.2021.1977986
15. Snaider, C. (2023). “Gender Policy-as-Practice with Young Children: The Politics of Gender-Justice in Early Childhood Education.” Doctoral thesis. Columbia University, USA. http://search.ndltd.org/show.php?id=oai:union.ndltd.org:columbia.edu/oai:academiccommons.columbia.edu:10.7916/jftb-rz71
16. Leiden University (2023). “Hidden in Plain Sight: Gender Bias and Heteronormativity in Dutch Textbooks.” Educational Studies. Leiden University, Netherlands. https://library.cnu.ac.kr/eds/detail/eue_164366845
17. Campbell, C., Peter, T., & Taylor, C. (2021). “Educators’ reasons for not practising 2SLGBTQ+ inclusive education.” Canadian Journal of Education, 44(4), 964-991. University of Winnipeg, Canada. https://scholar.google.ro/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=0X18HGcAAAAJ&citation_for_view=0X18HGcAAAAJ:UebtZRa9Y70C
18. University of California, Santa Barbara (2024). “Beyond Bookselling: How Queer Bookstores Shaped the Gay Liberation Movement.” https://rcsgd.sa.ucsb.edu
19. Gray, E.M. & Ullman, J. (2025). “Gender Equity in Melbourne’s Select Entry High School (SEHS) System.” Western Sydney University, Australia. https://researchers.westernsydney.edu.au/en/publications/gender-equity-in-melbournes-select-entry-high-school-sehs-system
20. University of Toronto (2018). “Teachers’ Beliefs About Gender Differences in Single-Sex Classrooms.” TSpace Repository. https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca
21. University of Calgary (2024). “Single-Sex Schooling at an Elite Independent School: A Multi-Methods Case Study.” https://journalhosting.ucalgary.ca