Queer Identities in the Classroom: The Relationship Between Heteronormativity and Queer Literature

Research Paper- Fall 2025

Abstract

This paper questioned the connection between societal refusal to acknowledge queerness within literature and the impact it has had on modern-day views of queer individuals. Secondary research was conducted where attitudes regarding queer identities being represented were analyzed. It was found that queer identities are often ignored in classrooms. When queer identities are addressed in literature classrooms, heteronormativity is not addressed. Power and systems of propaganda were also discussed to analyze the impact heteronormativity has had on conversations about queer identities. Rhetoric about queer identities appearing in books found in schools was also analyzed. It was found that lack of education about queer literature combined with anti-queer rhetoric works to Other queer individuals. 

Keywords: heteronormativity, queer theory, queer literature, heterocentrism

Queer Identities in the Classroom: The Relationship Between Heteronormativity and Queer Literature 

When I was in high school, I, like many other high schoolers, read The Great Gatsby. I was initially excited to read this novel because I had heard there were queer themes that were found within the text.  However, before we even opened the book, my teacher announced to the class that we were not allowed to write about Nick and Gatsby’s relationship. We were not allowed to discuss it in class, and I was flat-out told there were no queer themes present within the text. I was disappointed but unsurprised. I was 17 years old at the time, and I had never been exposed to any queer literature or themes in my English language arts classes. My teachers discouraged any queer readings of the texts we interacted with. While my family expressed extreme discomfort with any representation of queer people. My peers also claimed that queer people “forced” heterosexual characters to be gay. Queer readings of books, TV shows, or movies were discouraged by nearly everyone in my life. I was convinced that queer themes were not present within literature and if they were they were from some obscure, far off piece of media. Additionally, I was convinced that reading texts under the assumption that queer people might be present within them was wrong. When I made it to the Collegiate level, I was shocked that not only was literature often queer, but many famous figures like Walt Whitman, William Shakespeare, and Oscar Wilde were considered queer. 

When we look at how pervasive queer literature is, it’s surprising that many cannot recognize the queer nature of that literature. In some cases, people outright deny the existence of queer themes within a text. If they are not denying the queerness of a text, they are often unwilling to even interact with those texts, claiming that any representation of queerness or “alternate sexualities/gender identities”  is “pornographic” or “filthy.” Even when queer literature is being acknowledged as queer, many teachers are refusing to teach it. When queer literature is taught, it is taught in a way that does not acknowledge heteronormativity. Heteronormativity can be defined as “systemic and institutionalized practices that ‘legitimize and privilege heterosexuality and heterosexual relationships as fundamental and ‘natural’ within society’” (Schieble & Polleck, 2017, p. 168). Refusing to interact with the queer themes in literature or even acknowledging the queerness of an author works to uphold heteronormative standards. By upholding these heteronormative standards, we are doing ourselves a disservice and ignoring the experiences of a significant portion of the population. This helps to enable heterocentrism or the assumption that heterosexuality is universal and that everyone can be understood within heterosexual terms (Tyson, 2015). This has led to a culture that feels comfortable Othering queer individuals. Throughout this paper, I hope to explore the relationship between the societal refusal to acknowledge queerness within literature as valid and worthy of analysis and the impact it has had on modern-day views of queerness. 

Literature Review

The majority of scholars agree that heteronormativity deeply impacts the way we interact with literature. Western culture heavily revolves around heterosexual identities and, in some cases, discourages any presentation that does not align with heteronormativity (Tyson, 2015; Frye, 1992; Schideble & Pollock, 2017). In Critical Theory Today, Lois Tyson (2015) discusses the idea that queer identities are invisible due to heteronormativity, heterosexism, and heterocentrism. These form a culture that enforces compulsory heterosexuality or the idea that people face extreme amounts of societal pressure to be heterosexual and conform to heteronormative standards. In her book, Willful Virgin: Essays in Feminism, Marilyn Frye (1992) dove into the complexities of heteronormativity and how it impacts higher education. Compulsory heterosexuality also determines the way we interact with texts (Tyson, 2015). In some instances, compulsory heterosexuality can determine which texts are deemed “appropriate” for children to read (O'Loughlin et al., 2022). While the work of queer authors is often taught in classrooms, little attention is paid towards an author’s identity and the queer themes found within a text (Tyson, 2015). Melissa Schieble and Jody Polleck (2017) discussed the complex relationship between heteronormativity and teaching literature in English language classes in their article, “Innovations In English Language Arts Teacher Education.” They found that nearly 40% of English language arts programs do not utilize queer texts. Schieble and Polleck (2017) also cited heteronormativity as a main reason there is a lack of attention paid towards queer texts. Thein et al. (2013) conducted a study where they examined the responses of 20 graduate students in their master level course. Their study indicated that, regardless of a participant's views about queer individuals, they more often than not resisted the idea of teaching queer texts. A Pew Research (2024) report cited similar findings. Nearly 50% of teachers believe students should not learn about gender identity at all in school. The attitudes of teachers reflected the attitudes of parents and US adults. It seems that, generally, teachers and parents are resistant towards K-12 students learning about queer people. 

Methodology 

My research was limited by time and money. I was unable to conduct primary research due to these limitations, and only secondary research was conducted. When conducting my research, I primarily used trusted databases like ResearchGate, JSTOR, and Worldcat. I researched the authors of the articles and books I decided to use to ensure the information was coming from a scholarly place. I selected sources based on a few criteria. The first criterion was relevance to my topic. The second criterion was how recently a source was published. Sources older than 10 years were analyzed thoroughly to ensure that they were still relevant to the modern day. When using older sources like Thein et al. (2013) and Schieble and Polleck’s (2017) article, I found more recent articles that confirmed the presence of a particular attitude found within those older articles. 

Findings and Discussion 

Heteronormativity is interwoven into nearly every aspect of society, and this includes the study of literature. Queer literature is practically unknown despite its prevalence within our culture (Tyson, 2015). When Tyson (2015) presented her students with a list of queer authors, many of them were unaware that those authors were queer. Her experience within her collegiate level classes is representative of deeply instilled values found within our culture. Schieble and Polleck (2017) described the experience of a gay education student. This student dropped out of his program due to his feelings of exclusion in his program and school. He felt as if he was not allowed to be queer within this environment. He is not alone in his experience. Other queer individuals often experience similar feelings and concerns. Another individual explained that she felt uncomfortable being perceived as queer in her classroom because she was afraid to lose her job (Schieble & Polleck, 2017). Tyson (2015) discussed the idea that many professors and students still face discomfort talking about queerness in college classes. She also found that many people who compile anthologies ignore the queerness of authors found within those anthologies. This further contributes to the idea that queer people are not present within society. Even within women’s studies, which was largely influenced by lesbians in the 70s and 80s, lesbians were often excluded from discussions “...It seems common and characteristic for the women instructors to assume that widespread heterosexuality and the dominance of heterosexual conceptions have always been and will always be The Way It Is for humans on this planet…” (Frye, 1992, p. 52). Even in spaces built by queer people they are excluded. 

Historically, queer literature was seen as having no merit of its own (Pruitt, 2016). According to Pruitt (2016), to even begin teaching queer literature, an educator first has to justify why queer themes are valid. Educators had to “debunk” the idea that queer literature is inherently less valuable than heterosexual literature. Schieble and Polleck (2017) found in their study that education about queer literature is deeply entrenched in heteronormativity. This means that educators avoid directly asking their students to think about the larger societal implications found within texts relating to queer people. Discussions about queer people are “...largely framed through a protect and punish approach, which locates bullying towards LGBTQ youth as an interpersonal phenomenon, rather than an outcome of a broader heteronormative culture” (Schieble & Pollock, 2017, p. 167). By ignoring the deep societal pressures placed on everyone to conform to heteronormative standards we cannot work towards countering heteronormativity (Pruitt, 2016).  Which is essential to understanding queer literature. Schieble and Polleck (2017) go on to say educators face societal pressures to conform to heteronormativity and not teach about “controversial” topics. Thein et al. (2013) found that many educators worry they will lose their jobs or cause more problems for queer youth by acknowledging queerness. One participant of the Thein et al. (2013) study even asked a principal in their home state about the possibility of teaching LGBT literature, which the principal rejected. In addition, educators not only have to worry about proving queer literature is valuable, but they also now have to prove it isn't pornographic or sexual (O'Loughlin et al., 2022). This has created an environment where it is difficult to even acknowledge that queer people exist and have always existed. 

Queer people are systematically Othered due to the refusal to teach or recognize queer literature. Frye (1992) discussed the idea of heteronormativity and connected the idea of queer people being cast off or Othered by society. Frye (1992) asserted the idea that those in power uphold their status through complex social and political structures that rely on propaganda. She also discussed the idea that those in power rely on others not in power to reinforce propaganda. According to Frye (1992), societal expectations like heteronormativity must be reinforced on members of society to further divide others and give those with power their status. This concept Frye (1992) discussed in her book can clearly be seen in further examples she gave. She argued that women who do not align themselves with heternormative and patriarchal ideals are often “accused” of being queer themselves, regardless of their actual identity. These accusations not only reinforced heterocentric ideals but also patriarchal ideals. This works to Other queer individuals and uphold systems of power by dividing women’s studies into two groups. Lesbians who study women’s studies and heterosexual women who study women’s studies. By Othering queer people and upholding heterocentric ideologies, the people in power further divide those who are not in power. By allowing anti-queer rhetoric to prevail, it creates a system of propaganda that feeds itself. 

If we paint a picture that being queer is wrong or different and then we associate a specific ideology with queer people we can discourage people from interacting with that ideology. Frye (1992) argued that there is a deep connection between patriarchal ideals and heteronormativity. She posited the idea that this complex relationship between the two prevented many heterosexual women from fully exploring their identities due to the intense pressure to be heterosexual. While I do not agree with her claim that “heterosexuality is a highly artificial product of the patriarchy” (Frye, 1992, p. 55), I do believe her ideas have merit and can begin to explain why queer literature is not treated with the same amount of respect as heterosexual literature. Frye (1992) connects the idea that many women do not explore their identities fully to the idea that “Heterosexuality is understood by them to be sexuality, and they assume uncritically and unthinkingly that it is simply the way humans are; They do not perceive heterosexuality as an option” (p. 55). It is assumed that a person must be heterosexual and anything outside of that is perceived to be wrong. There is one “correct” option so it is difficult to engage with the options outside of it. This is why it is often hard for heterosexual women studying women’s studies to engage with lesbian literature or rhetoric meaningfully (Frye, 1992). It is also why it is hard for many people to engage with queer literature meaningfully. When one assumes that heterosexuality is the only option, queer experiences are rendered invisible (Tyson, 2015). It then becomes easy to avoid discussing queer people. It is easy to justify not including information about an author’s queerness in an anthology. It is also easy to justify not teaching students about the systems that reinforce heteronormativity. When a person has to weigh losing their livelihood against the idea of teaching students about people who society deems less important, they often choose the less risky option. So, those with less power become tools of propaganda whether they realize it or not. 

The perpetuation that queerness is not an option leads to very harmful ideologies spreading. A common argument against teaching queer literature is that it is inappropriate for children and children’s innocence should be protected. On October 19, 2023 Nichole Solas gave a written statement to the US House Committee on Education and the Workforce regarding explicit books in school libraries. She argues that there are sexually explicit or pornographic texts being found in school libraries. Throughout her written statement, Solas (2023) connects queerness to the idea of pornography being found in schools. The rhetoric she uses sexualizes queerness which further reinforces heteronormativity. She then cites evidence claiming pornography is extremely harmful to children. I do not disagree that pornography is harmful to children. I also cannot comment on the actual content of the books she expressed concern about. I do disagree with the way Solas (2023) presents her argument. In this written statement she directly correlates queer people to pornography. Rhetoric similar to Solas dominates the conversation around queer literature in schools (O’Loughlin, 2022). Equating queer literature to being “pornographic”, “filthy”, or “perverted” means people start to believe all queer literature fits these descriptions. Which leads to widespread bans regardless of the actual content found in the books being banned (O’Loughlin, 2022). In a report published by Pen America (2025) they discussed the impacts book banning has had on creatives. Book bannings have directly caused some creatives to begin censoring themselves because they are afraid of backlash. This is not an unintended consequence of the rhetoric that led to book bannings. It unfortunately seems that many who support book banning are advocating for the exclusion of queer identities. Many of those who push for book bans are falling victim to the systems of power and propaganda that Frye (1992) discussed. 54% of US adults believe parents should be able to prevent their children from learning about gender identity or sexual orientation at all (Pew Research Center, 2024). This statistic is representative of the chokehold heteronormativity has on US adults. Our society is unwilling to even acknowledge the existence of queer people because we want to “protect children’s innocence”. 

However, to pretend that queer identities are a threat to “children’s innocence” reinforces heteronormativity (O’Loughlin et al., 2022). The idea of “childhood innocence” these anti-queer groups claim to want to protect is fundamentally rooted in “...heteronormtive, gendered, white, middle class understanding of what ‘the child’ is and who is allowed to be ‘a child’” (O’Loughlin, 2022, p. 2). Not only does this idea reinforce the idea that being heterosexual is the “norm,” but it ignores the experiences of students who are queer or who have queer relatives. Some students may have 2 dads or 2 moms. Some students may have figured out they are queer at a young age. I would argue that these children are not any less innocent than children who fit into the heteronormative experience more. Heterosexuality is not inherently innocent in the same way homosexuality is not inherently immoral. In fact, I would argue that compulsory heterosexuality can often have negative implications and teach the wrong lesson. Tyson (2015) brought up an interesting example in The Bostonians (1885) where Olive and Verena were broken up by a male character named Basil. Basil is characterized as, “...selfish, brutish competitive manipulator who is infuriated by the women’s movement and sure to give Verena an unhappy life” (Tyson, 2015, p. 304). Despite all of this, Verena and Basil’s relationship is often seen in a positive light due to it being a heterosexual relationship and not a homosexual one like Verena and Olive’s relationship. However, some would argue that teaching queer literature can have negative consequences on queer students. 

Teaching queer literature could lead towards queer students receiving backlash. 

However, not teaching queer literature already has. Literature helps inform our worldviews and helps increase our understanding of other people. Articles from 8-10 years ago show educators have been resistant towards teaching queer literature and issues in their classrooms (Thein et al., 2013; Schieble & Polleck, 2017). Schieble and Polleck (2017) also discussed the idea that when queer literature was being taught, it often was not taught in a way that addressed the complex social structures that oppress queer people. Lessons about queer literature or issues focused on pitying queer individuals. Students were not encouraged to question systemic issues or their own biases. When an audience is full of people who have been told all their lives that queerness is not valid, pointing out homophobia does not do much. It does not cause heterosexual students to reflect on their own biases or the way heteronormativity impacts them. Why would someone want to work to change a system that benefits them? Our refusal to engage with queer literature has created an environment where anything deemed out of the ordinary is questioned, belittled, and banned. It is possible that queer students might not be directly targeted in their classrooms but to pretend that the culture we have created for them is a welcoming one is dishonest. A large portion of the books being banned in school libraries contains queer themes and representation (Pen America, 2025). These students have lost access to seeing characters and experiences that represent them. It is important to acknowledge queer students and children grow up into queer adults. Queer educators are terrified to even acknowledge queerness within their classrooms (Schieble & Polleck, 2017). One participant from Schieble and Polleck’s (2017) article said “...there are many horrible, overtly sexual stigmas attached to sexualities other than heterosexual and I am very nervous about how to navigate being a lesbian in a space that is very heterosexual” (p. 180). This participant also acknowledged the possibility that addressing queer identities could lead to her being fired from her job.  

Limitations 

Due to time constraints, I was unable to research transgender identities specifically. The vast majority of the research focused primarily on homosexual identities. If transgender identities were considered in the articles included, it was not explicitly stated in those articles. Transgender identities are often roped into the term queer so the authors of these articles were likely including those identities. Future research could look at the representation of transgender identities in literature classrooms. It would also be interesting to look more into the rhetoric used by those who advocate for banning books and how that impacts views of queer literature. This topic was briefly explored throughout this paper, but it was not the focus of my research. Future articles could discuss when it is “appropriate” for children to begin learning about queer identities. I would argue that these discussions can begin as young as two years old at least in regards to gender identity. Children begin forming their understanding of gender identity anywhere from two to six-years-old and gender variance does occur in young children (Callahan & Nicholas, 2018). None of the articles discussed in this paper indicated what age is best to begin discussing sexuality. This paper was unable to cover that topic and instead focused on highlighting the importance of talking about queer identities. 

Conclusion

Refusal to teach queer literature meaningfully, with full transparency about the queer nature of the authors or text themselves, may have resulted in heteronormative culture being upheld. Currently, parents and administrators are attempting to ban queer texts from schools and libraries, claiming that these texts are “filthy” regardless of the actual content found within the text (O’Loughlin et al., 2022). A focus on protecting “childhood innocence” works to uphold heteronormative ideas. O’Loughlin et al. (2022) discussed the idea that some children are queer. Queer children deserve to read stories that represent them. Not in relation to just homophobia which makes the peers of queer students view them as “pitiable” (Schieble & Polleck, 2017).  Teaching elements of queer theory is pertinent towards not making queer students feel like they are the Other (Pruitt, 2016). It is important to address the self-censoring culture we have created regarding queer identities. Educators and creatives both face extreme difficulty representing queer identities. Non-traditional creatives and educators will only be free to be themselves when they are recognized as having merit of their own free from the expectations of an Anglo-European culture (Frye, 1992). 

17-year-old me deserved to know that queer literature was influential, prominent, and important. I had been an out, proud, gay man for years at that point. Despite that, I felt alone in the world. I recognize that my high school English teacher was likely censoring the discussion of the queer themes found in The Great Gatsby to prevent backlash. It could also be possible he did not want to create an environment where his queer students were targeted. However, queer students need representation. Not only do they need representation, they need to be acknowledged as being just as valid and worthy as their heterosexual and cisgender peers. It is pertinent that we begin acknowledging queer literature at both the high school and collegiate level. Acknowledging queer literature is the first step towards building an environment where queer identities are considered equal to heterosexual and cisgender identities. 

References

Callahan, S., & Nicholas, L. (2018). Dragon wings and butterfly wings: Implicit gender binarism in early childhood. Gender and Education. DOI: 10.1080/09540253.2018.1552361 

Frye, M. (1992). Willful Virgin: Essays in Feminism. [Self Published]. Marilyn Frye. 

O'Loughlin, C., Schmidt, T., & Glazier, J. (2022). "It’s just filth:” Banned books and the project of queer erasure, Northwest Journal of Teacher Education, 17(3), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.15760/nwjte.2022.17.3.7 

Pen America. (2025, October 1).The normalization of book banning: Banned in the USA, 2024-2025 [Report] https://pen.org/report/the-normalization-of-book-banning/#heading-9

Pew Research Center. (2024, February 22). Race and lgbtq issues in k-12 schools: What teachers, teens and the U.S. public say about current curriculum debates. [Report] https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2024/02/22/race-and-lgbtq-issues-in-k-12-schools/

Pruitt, J. (2016). LGBT literature courses and questions of canonicity. College English, 79(1), 81-105. https://www.proquest.com/docview/1817066658?OpenUrlRefId=info:xri/sid:wcdiscovery&accountid=43626&sourcetype=Scholarly%20Journals

Schieble, M., & Polleck, J. (2017). Addressing LGBTQ-themed texts and heteronormativity in English education. In H. L. Hallman (Eds.), Innovations in English language arts teacher education (pp. 165-183). Emerald Publishing. DOI: 

10.1108/S1479-368720170000027009

Solas, N. (2023). Written statement before the u.s. house committee on education and the workforce: Combatting graphic, explicit books in school libraries. Independent Women’s Form. https://docs.house.gov/meetings/ED/ED14/20231019/116471/HHRG-118-ED14-20231019-SD004.pdf 

Thein, A. H., Kavanagh, K. M., & Fink, L. (2013). Language arts teachers' resistance to teaching LGBT literature and issues. Language Arts, 90(3), 169-180. https://www.proquest.com/docview/1327229438?OpenUrlRefId=info:xri/sid:wcdiscovery&accountid=43626&sourcetype=Scholarly%20Journals

Tyson, L. (eds.). (2015). Critical Theory Today: A User Friendly Guide (3rd ed.). Routledge.