1
TITLE
Analysis o homophobia du ing physical educa ion lessons in Spain
AUTHORS
Joaquín Pied a, Depa men o Physical Educa ion and Spo , Uni e si y o Se ille, Spain [email p o ec ed]
Gonzalo Ramí ez-Macías, Depa men o Physical Educa ion and Spo , Uni e si y o Se ille, Spain
[email p o ec ed]
F ancis Ries, Depa men o Physical Educa ion and Spo , Uni e si y o Se ille, Spain [email p o ec ed]
Augus o R. Rod íguez-Sánchez, CEP Fundación San Pablo Andalucía, Spain [email p o ec ed]
ABSTRACT
While he s udy o homophobia in spo is a se led ma e wi hin he scien i ic backg ound o
a ious coun ies, he e a e no any Spanish s udies analyzing and deepening in o he si ua ion o
lesbian, gay, bisexual o anssexual in an educa ional con ex . The p esen chap e is he esul
o a esea ch conduc ed in Spain in ela ion o he opinions and belie s abou homosexuali y
du ing physical educa ion lessons. Quan i a i e and quali a i e me hodologies ha e been applied
o a sample o bo h physical educa ion eache s and college-aged s uden s. The esul s highligh
ha , as is he case o o he coun ies, physical educa ion eache s claim o ha e a sensi i i y and
espec o sexual di e si y in he class oom. Howe e , hese s a emen s a e con adic ed by
o he s a emen s by he same eache s as well as by he opinions and belie s o college-aged
s uden s, who o en a i m ha physical educa ion lessons a e s ill ep oducing s e eo ypes and
making an o ensi e use o language. Homophobic beha io s among s uden s and e en owa ds
physical educa ion eache s on occasion s ill ake place in he class oom. As a esul , his chap e
b ings a en ion o he need o mo e awa eness and aining o physical educa ion eache s,
p o iding hem wi h app op ia e s a egies in his a ea. Fu he mo e, i is impo an o os e he
s udy and he p oduc ion o knowledge abou homophobia in he ield o physical educa ion.
KEYWORDS
Homophobia, homosexuali y, physical educa ion, s uden s, eache s
2
INTRODUCTION
The Spanish socie y is one o he pionee s in he wo ld in egula ing disc imina o y
beha io based on gende o sexual o ien a ion. Legisla ion egula ing he wo king, legal and
amily a eas, has been de eloped in Spain in he las ew yea s. In he educa ional a ea in
pa icula he inco po a ion o equal oppo uni ies o he cu iculum has been p esen whene e
legal modi ica ions ook place since he end o he wen ie h cen u y. Howe e , he de elopmen
o a legal amewo k ha p o ec s a pe son om possible sexis and homophobic a acks has no
been coupled wi h a change o men ali y wi hin socie y. Tha is why his chap e aims o desc ibe
and disco e he si ua ion and managemen o disc imina o y beha io based on sexual
o ien a ion wi hin PE eachings in Spain. Spo and physical ac i i y, as we will see la e on, a e
some o he his o ical pilla s o he pa ia chy, which is ese ed o he e osexual and masculine
men. Lea ning abou hese pe cep ions will allow us o o m an accu a e diagnosis o he
educa ional eali y o physical educa ion (PE), and o p opose mo e e icien and ealis ic ac ion
s eps.
The school, as a compulso y s age o e e yone in ad anced socie ies, is one o he social
agen s ha has mo e in luence and au ho i y in o ming he cha ac e and pe sonali y o boys and
gi ls. Tha is why he ac ion o he educa ion sys em is necessa y, i no manda o y, o elimina e
he ba ie s, disc imina ion, and isola ion ha some social g oups keep expe iencing, whe he
due o hei ace, belie s, gende , sexual o ien a ion. Wi hin he school, PE plays an impo an
ole because i helps o c ea e he s uden s' iden i y h ough hei bodies. As Vidiella s a es [1],
“embodimen is key o unde s and how indi iduals inco po a e no ms and/o esis hem”. Body
and mo emen play an impo an ole in he ela ionship be ween pupils and he ou side – he
socie y. The eachings o PE, as a channel o educa ion h ough he body, can and mus wo k
wi h special in e es in he c ea ion o he pupils' sexual iden i ies. Howe e , up un il now PE has
aken he ole o imposing he objec i e a ibu es o he body in acco dance wi h he e hical,
aes he ical, mo al and ideological p inciples o he uling class, wi hou aking any in e es in
di e si y [2]. In his sense, eache s play a key ole in he ea men o gende in PE [3],
acili a ing o hinde ing he c ea ion o a sa e and disc imina ion- ee en i onmen o all
s uden s. Tha is why his s udy analyzes no only he opinions and expe iences o s uden s, bu
3
also akes in o accoun he expe iences and pe cep ions o PE eache s. I he ba ie s ha boys
and gi ls encoun e in PE lessons o p ac ice physical ac i i ies eely and sa ely a e o be
des oyed, hen eache s can and mus con ibu e cou ageously o igh agains disc imina o y
beha io du ing hei lessons.
He e ono ma i i y in Physical Educa ion: c ossing he ed line
In 1991 he academician Michael Wa ne [4] coins he e m he e ono ma i i y o de ine
he p ac ices and ins i u ions ha legi ima e and p i ilege he e osexuali y and he e osexual
ela ionships as undamen al and 'na u al' among socie y [5]. The e a e wo ac o s wi hin his
social egime, which pe ade many social ac i i ies: homophobia and he e osexism. Va ious
in es iga ions link homophobic, he e ono ma i e and sexual ac i i ies o he c ea ion and
main enance o gende iden i ies in occiden al cul u es [6].
Cu en ly, homosexuali y is a widely s udied ma e , and his keeps being he case in
di e en scien i ic ields (medicine, psychology, sociology, and educa ion). The de ini ion o
homosexuali y has e ol ed since he e m was i s coined in he 70s. Linked o homosexuali y
we ind he e m homophobia, which can be de ined as a s ong i a ional ea owa ds
homosexual people [7]. Howe e , Kimmel goes beyond when a i ming “homophobia is he ea
o be shown o ou sel es and o he wo ld ha we do no achie e he s anda ds, ha we a e no
eal men” [8]. This is o say, homophobia is no only he nega i e a i ude owa ds he ou side
(gays, lesbians...), bu i is also one's own ea o no being accep ed by he communi y; a ea o
no ul illing he no ms o masculini y o eminini y.
Ano he pilla o he e ono ma i i y is he e osexism. This e m is de ined as he belie ha
all people a e he e osexuals, and ha he e osexuali y is he no m and wha is accep able, lea ing
homosexuali y and o he sexual o ien a ions elega ed o a de alued and disc edi ed place
because hey su pass he limi s o he e ono ma i i y [7].
The e ha e been many s udies on homosexuali y and educa ion since he 80s. As Ay azo
and Su he land s a e [9], PE is one o he a eas wi hin he school ha needs mos de elopmen ,
4
because i is he a ea whe e we encoun e he mos hos ile clima e owa ds homosexuali y [10-
11-12]. Besides, he inc ease in he p ac ice o spo , as well as he wide p esence o spo in he
media, esul in mo e boys and gi ls becoming in luenced and abso bed by his pa ia chal
ideology. As Ay azo and Su he land [9] and Dowling [13] a i m, he s e eo yped images o
homophobia and homosexuali y, and ha o masculini y and eminini y, ha e been his o ically
accen ua ed in he con ex o spo , and con inuing nowadays.
The in es iga ion in o homosexuali y in he ield o PE s a ed wi h he esea ch by
G i in [14] on homosexual eache s. This esea ch del ed in o he de elopmen o sexual
o ien a ions, and ound ha homosexuals nego ia ed hei sexual o ien a ion in he school
h ough a la ge spec um o possibili ies, om exposing and publicly de ending hei
homosexuali y o hiding i . La e on, he esea ch done by Cla ke [15] on lesbian eache s
highligh ed ha he spo s cul u e disc imina es be ween he e osexual and homosexual women
so as o p ese e he hegemony, hus c ea ing an en i onmen whe e homosexual women su e
sexual assaul s, which o ces hem o s ay in isible and hiding [16], o as Sykes a i m, hey s ay
silenced by he he e ono ma i i y [17-18]. The s e eo ypes linked o homosexuali y, such as
p omiscui y o pedophilia, ha e in some cases gene a ed pa e ns o ha assmen and
disc imina ion owa ds homosexual eache s, who ha e been labeled in many cases as pe e ed
because o wo king wi h child en. In o de o a oid his, lesbian eache s in PE end o de elop
hose a ibu es adi ionally assigned o women, eaching wha is known as hype eminini y [15-
21]. In many cases, homosexual eache s admi o ha ing kep a mo e dis an ela ionship wi h
hei pupils han hei he e osexual coun e pa s, o a oid suspicions [22].
The social ad ances and he his o ical s uggle o he igh s o he mino i ies ha e
allowed in many coun ies he c ea ion o a legal amewo k ha de ends and co e s sexual
mino i ies. This change may make us hink ha cu en ly, in many ad anced coun ies, people
belonging o he lesbian, gay, bisexual and anssexual communi y (LGBT) can ca y ou hei
daily li e wi h mo e gua an ees han a ew yea s ago. Howe e , no e e y hing has been
accomplished. On one hand, many coun ies ha e no expe ienced his legal ad ancemen . In a
esea ch ca ied ou in Tu key, he in es iga o Sa aç shows he pe sis ence o nega i e a i udes
owa ds LGBT people among he u u e eache s o PE, and hese a i udes a e accen ua ed in he
5
case o men [23]. On he o he hand, despi e he social and legal ad ances, hose belonging o he
LGBT communi y keep su e ing a acks and keep being ic ims o nega i e a i udes in he ield
o PE, as i is shown in he esea ch by Whi e, Oswal , Wya and Pe e son in he Ame ican
con ex [24].
Focusing on he esea ch abou eache s o PE we ind s udies ha analyze hei
pe cep ion o homosexuali y. In his sense, Mo ow and Gill [25] obse ed he pe cep ions o PE
eache s on homophobia and he e osexism, inding ha homophobic beha io a e commonplace
among Seconda y Schools in he US, and ha eache s, in he s uden s' opinion, ail in hei
a emp o c ea e an inclusi e en i onmen du ing hei lessons [26]. In his same line, he ecen
esea ch by Pied a, Rod íguez-Sánchez, Ries and Ramí ez-Macías highligh s ha , acco ding o
s uden s, PE eache s a e no e y awa e o homophobic beha io aking place du ing hei
lessons, gene ally aking meage s eps o o e come disc imina o y beha io ha may a ise
du ing hei lessons [27].
In he las ew yea s se e al eseache s ha e poin ed ou ha he mos basic and habi ual
way o opp essing homosexuals in he school in gene al (and in PE in pa icula ) is he use o
language as an a acking ool [28-29-30]. Howe e , he possibili y o using homophobic
language in a non-pejo a i e way, acco ding o cul u al con ex , has a isen among some
academic ci cles [31]. This s a emen is bo n om he belie ha in di e en ad anced socie ies
homophobia is dec easing hanks o he legal and social p og esses ha ha e aken place [32]. In
his ega d, in a quali a i e esea ch on Spanish eache s, Pied a, Ramí ez-Macías and La o e
highligh he dispa i y o opinions ega ding whe he he Spanish PE clima e is hos ile o
inclusi e owa ds sexual mino i ies [33].
In hei esea ch on sexual sensi i i y in he school, he US in es iga o s McCaugh y,
Dillon, Jones and Smigell [11], and p e iously o he s [15-19-34], acknowledge he impo ance
o he ole o PE eache s as an agen in ol ed in his change o sensi i i y – his is o say,
owa ds he acknowledgemen o he igh s o homosexual people. In hei e iew o esea ch on
homophobia in he eachings o PE, Ay azo and Su he land [9], as well as Cla ke [35], sugges
eache s o demons a e an inclusi e beha io in he class oom, o app ecia e he di e en sexual

6
o ien a ions, and o wo k owa ds espec among each o he in he class oom in o de e adica e
homophobia. Equally, hese au ho s unde line he need o imp o e he aining o u u e PE
eache s, so ha hey acqui e he needed expe iences and ools in o de o educe nega i e
a i udes in he class oom [23]. Howe e , many eache s p e e o igno e homophobic beha io
ha a ises du ing hei lessons by no ac ing in a speci ic manne , alleging in some cases ha i is
no pa o hei jobs, because i is an issue al eady o e come in socie y [19-33].
Focusing on he esea ch on PE s uden s, we ind he s udy by La sson, Fag ell and
Redelius, who, in hei analysis o PE om he quee heo y, emphasize ha he image o quee
s uden s is excluded and ma ginalized wi hin he he e osexual ma ix o PE [36]. When asked,
he s uden s highligh he alidi y o he e ono ms among PE eachings, which o ce boys and
gi ls o ac in a ce ain way, always wi hin he bounda ies o he e osexuali y [22], and wi hou
espassing he ed line so as o a oid being labeled as 'abno mal' [37]. In he No h-Ame ican
con ex , he only piece o wo k ha ocuses on s uden s among he sample is he esea ch ca ied
ou by Mo ow and Gill, which shows in i s esul s ha PE s uden s ha e a some poin being
awa e o homophobic and he e osexis beha io , bo h owa ds s uden s and owa ds PE eache s,
mainly h ough he use o language [25]. In his same sense, in Spain, he esea ch om Blández,
Fe nández and Sie a, highligh s he use o homophobic language o insul hose boys and gi ls
who do no ul ill he ypical a ibu es o hei gende [39].
METHODOLOGY
To ca y ou his esea ch we coun ed on he pa icipa ion o 789 indi iduals, ou o
which 619 we e uni e si y s uden s and 170 we e PE eache s om P ima y o Seconda y
school.
The s uden s belonged o he Uni e si ies o Se ille, Vigo and A Co uña in Spain. 70.4%
o hem we e men and 29.6% we e women, a e aging 22 yea s o age, wi h a ange be ween 18
and 50 yea s. No di ec assessmen s o cu en s uden s we e ca ied ou because o he many
limi a ions and di icul ies in ol ed wi h di ec ly assessing Seconda y Educa ion s uden s,
especially on such a delica e opic. Ins ead, we sampled college-age adul s. Fu he mo e, his
7
sampling allows o compa ison wi h he o iginal s udy o Mo ow and Gill (2003), whe e only
college s uden s pa icipa ed.
Rela ing o he PE eache s, 106 o hem we e men and 64 we e women. They a e aged
40.6 yea s o age, wi h a ange be ween 20 and 60 yea s. The pa icipa ing eache s (81 om
P ima y School, 59 om Seconda y School, and 30 om High School) impa ed hei lessons in
se e al Andalusian and Galician ci ies.
The i s ques ions o he ques ionnai es o bo h PE s uden s and eache s ob ained da a
ela ing o hei gende , age, and sexual o ien a ion, as well as ega ding he p o ince whe e hey
had comple ed hei Seconda y School s udies ( om 12 o 16 yea s o age). The s uden s
indica ed how many yea s had lapsed since hey inished Seconda y School, and he ype o
school in which hey s udied. Las ly, hey we e asked abou he gende o hei las PE eache a
ha s age. The pa icipa ing eache s indica ed he ype o school and he le el a which hey
augh . Finally, hey we e asked abou how many yea s hey had been eaching, and whe he hey
pa icipa ed in ac i i ies and/o asks ela ed o coeduca ion.
The i s 11 i ems o Mo ow and Gill's ques ionnai e [25] we e used in o de o assess
he pe cep ion o homophobia and he e osexism in PE among he s uden s, o ob ain in o ma ion
abou he pe cep ion o he e osexis and homophobic beha io among s uden s, and be ween
s uden s and hei PE eache s. The i s 10 i ems asked s uden s o iden i y o wha ex en hey
wi nessed o expe ienced he e osexism and homophobia. The second sec ion o he o iginal
ques ionnai e (i ems 11-15) assesses o wha deg ee hei PE eache s gene a ed a ha mless space
o gay and lesbian s uden s. As he conce n o he p esen s udy was only o assess he
pa icipan s’ pe cep ions, we only included ques ion 11 om he second sec ion o he o iginal
ques ionnai e, as i assesses he use o inclusi e language by he s uden s. The s uc u e o he
o iginal ques ionnai e was main ained so ha he i ems show on a Like - ype scale om 1
(“many imes”) o 4 (“ne e ”). We main ained he o iginal s uc u e o i em 11, which was pa
o he second subscale o he o iginal ques ionnai e by Mo ow and Gill [25] – his is, a Like -
ype scale om 1 o 5.
8
The i s 12 i ems o Mo ow and Gill's ques ionnai e [25] we e used in o de o measu e
he pe cep ion o homophobia and he e osexism in PE among he eache s, so as o collec
in o ma ion abou he eache s' pe cep ions o he e osexis and homophobic beha io among
s uden s, be ween s uden s and PE eache s, and among pee s.
The ollowing de ini ions a e included in o de o cla i y concep s and ensu e he
unde s anding o bo h ques ionnai es:
-He e osexis beha io , which is he beha io ha assumes ha all s uden s a e
he e osexual, such as he s a emen s and ac i i ies ha assume ha e e yone li es in a adi ional
amily o ha hey da e people o he opposi e gende .
-Homophobic beha io , which is he beha io di ec ed owa ds s uden s who a e belie ed
o be gay o lesbians, o owa ds he people o o ganiza ions ha suppo hose s uden s. Such
beha io includes insul s o physical a acks.
-Inclusi e beha io , which is he beha io ha pu pose ully includes all s uden s,
including gays o lesbians.
In o de o ob ain he da a, eache s om he Depa men o Physical Educa ion and Spo
om he Uni e si ies o Se ille, Vigo and A Co uña we e con ac ed. Pe mission had been
eques ed p e iously om he Adminis a ion o he depa men s in o de o dis ibu e he
ques ionnai e. The sample has been ob ained on an anonymous and olun a y basis. The
collec ion o he da a ook place du ing he second qua e o he academic yea 2011/2012. All
he s uden s answe ed he ques ions olun a ily du ing he lessons wi h he pa icipan eache s,
and hey had p e iously signed an in o med consen o m. PE eache s pa icipa ing in he s udy
we e con ac ed by email o comple e he ques ionnai e online, and o pa icipa e in he
in e iews.
The back- ansla ion me hod [39] was used o he ansla ion o bo h ques ionnai es.
Bo h ques ionnai es we e analyzed in he ma e o hei legibili y, angle and unde s andabili y
be o e hey we e ansla ed. To c ea e he pilo esea ch, he i ems we e ansla ed om English
in o Spanish by ou na i e Spanish speake s independen ly, all o hem specialis s in Spo
9
Sciences. The esul ing disc epancies among he ansla ions we e widely discussed o de elop a
p elimina y Spanish e sion o he ques ionnai es. Fou na i e English speake s subsequen ly
ansla ed he p elimina y Spanish e sion o he ques ionnai es in o English. Fu he discussions
ook place o each consensus abou he back- ansla ions. The compa abili y and simili ude o
in e p e abili y [39] be ween he o iginal ex and he back- ansla ions was hen discussed, and
he emaining disc epancies we e co ec ed. Nex , he ansla ed e sions we e handed o ou
bilingual PE eache s, un amilia wi h he o iginal English e sion, who ansla ed again he
i ems om Spanish in o English. The o iginal English e sion and he back- ansla ion om
Spanish we e again compa ed o spo any signi ican di e ences.
The esul s o he pilo s udy indica ed a eliabili y o α=.718 o he comple e scale o he
s uden s' ques ionnai e and a eliabili y o α=.681 o he eache s' ques ionnai e. I em 7 was
elimina ed om he eache s' ques ionnai e and he eliabili y inc eased o α= .757. Once all he
da a was collec ed, he eliabili y o he ins umen s was calcula ed again. The coe icien o
C onbach alpha inc eased sligh ly o α=.737 (s uden s' ques ionnai e) and o α=.787 ( eache s
ques ionnai e); McMillan se s he accep able deg ee o eliabili y be ween α=.700 and α=.900
[40]. The s a is ical so wa e package SPSS 22 o Windows was used o ca y ou he
desc ip i e analysis o he da a and he analysis o he eliabili y o he ques ionnai e.
Elimina ing i em 7 om he eache s' ques ionnai e mean ha his scale was con igu ed
o he same i ems as he s uden s' ques ionnai e, bu om he pe spec i e o PE eache s,
ende ing he ques ionnai es compa able.
The in e iews and hei design
In e iews wi h P ima y and Seconda y School PE eache s o bo h gende s we e ca ied
ou in o de o del e in o he subjec o ou esea ch. The selec ion o he pa icipan s in his
s udy o quali a i e- ype cases has been in en ional [41], and based on c i e ia ha de e mine he
inclusion o a ce ain ype o indi idual among he sample [42]. The ollowing a e he c i e ia
used o inclusion:
 Cu en PE eache s wi h a leas i e yea s o expe ience.
16
“Bu mysel , ying no o hu anyone's sensi i i y, and wi hou disc imina ing anyone,
o in any case by way o posi i e disc imina ion, I would make an ex a e o so ha i
was commonplace.” (in e iew_1, pe sonal communica ion, 8 Feb ua y 2012).
“No, look, i i 's a one-o I ba ely gi e i impo ance, I y o make hem see ha i does
no ha e o be ha way, bu oh well. I I hen see ha he same boy o gi l does i again,
hen I call hem in and y o speak wi h hem. I he ma e is mo e se ious, I would hen
no go down o he schoolya d o I would go down la e , and I o ganize some hing like a
deba e o an assembly so ha all s uden s can gi e hei opinion abou wha happened.”
(in e iew_4, pe sonal communica ion, 29 Ma ch 2012).
“We don' ell child en explici ly ha we a e wo king on his, o on coeduca ion, bu
whene e we speak, wi hou ha ing o epea i oo o en, he language ies o be
coeduca ional; so many imes i you acciden ally say “come'on, boys, le 's go...” hey ask
you, “and wha abou he gi ls?”, because hey a e used o, e en i we don' use hose
wo ds, ha we hey a e all equal.” (in e iew_7, pe sonal communica ion, 26 Ma ch
2012).
Looking a he answe s gi en by bo h g oups acco ding o hei gende , he ollowing
da a can be obse ed:
[Table 2. Resul s acco ding o gende (men)]
[Table 3. Resul s acco ding o gende (women)]
In ela ion o he p esence o homophobic beha io om s uden o s uden (i em_3) he e
a e only no iceable di e ences in he case o men (p=.001), as male s uden s a e he ones who
admi o ha ing been wi nesses o hose beha io s (64.1% o hem answe “many imes” and
“some imes”, agains 52.4% o he eache s). E en hough his dis ibu ion is cohe en in ha he
s uden s a e hose who wi ness homophobic beha io om s uden o s uden (since hey o m
pa o he g oup), i also con as s wi h he answe s gi en by women, whe e he pe cen ages a e
simila be ween hemsel es.

17
Abou he use o he e osexis commen s (i em_9), only in he case o men a e he e
signi ican di e ences be ween he answe s gi en by s uden s and eache s (p=.002), whe e
s uden s make hose commen s mo e equen ly (36.5% o hem answe “many imes” and
“some imes”, agains 20.4% o he eache s).
The ollowing ables show he analyzable da a in ega d o he aspec s ela ed o he
g oups' answe s and hei sexual o ien a ion:
[Table 4. Resul s acco ding o sexual o ien a ion (he e osexual)]
[Table 5. Resul s acco ding o sexual o ien a ion (homosexual)]
[Table 6. Resul s acco ding o sexual o ien a ion (o he sexual o ien a ion)]
In ega d o ha ing been ic im o homophobic beha io om eache s (i em_6), he e
a e signi ican di e ences (p=.046) o he homosexual communi y. In his way, hose s uden s
who de ine hemsel es as homosexual ha e expe ienced such beha io o a la ge deg ee han
eache s ha e (20% answe “some imes”, while mos o he eache s' answe s a e “ ew imes”
and “ne e ”).
Wi h e e ence o making homophobic commen s (i em_7), a signi ican di e ence can
be app ecia ed be ween he e osexual s uden s and eache s (p=.000), whe e s uden s make
homophobic commen s mo e o en (24.6% o hem, adding up he ca ego ies “many imes” and
“some imes”).
Las ly, ela ed he e m “no mal” used wi h he e osexis conno a ions (i em_10),
signi ican di e ences can be seen be ween he e osexual s uden s and eache s (p=.000) and
hose belonging o o he sexual o ien a ions (p=.019).
DISCUSSION
18
PE is one o he subjec s ha mos de ends he adi ional pa ia chal model, whe e he
LGBT communi y is no only ma ginalized, bu also s igma ized. Resea ch such as ha o
Ay azo and Su he land, Hemphill and Symons, McCaugh y e al. and O´B ien e al. highligh
he hos ile clima e ha exis s in his subjec wi h ega d o homosexuali y, and o cou se wi h he
o he s sexual o ien a ions apa om he e osexuali y [9-10-11-12].
In his si ua ion, ob iously, he ole o PE eache s is key; in ac , hei ole should be
o ien ed owa ds c ea ing in hei lessons a clima e ha is sa e and ee o disc imina ion. To his
e ec , he i s s ep is ha hey become awa e o he p oblem. Thus, he esul s o his
in es iga ion conclude ha male and emale PE eache s in Spain a e ai ly awa e o his eali y
du ing hei lessons. In ac , o e 79% admi o ha ing been wi nesses o he e osexis beha io
om s uden o s uden “many” o “some imes” ( he wo highes alues o he scale o answe s in
he ques ionnai e), and also 56% o he eache s eplied ha hey wi nessed homophobic
beha io among s uden s by choosing one o he wo highes alues o he scale.
In his ega d, i is s iking he opposing iew o he s uden s, as he esea ch by Pied a e
al. concludes ha he s uden s belie e ha hei eache s a e no e y conscious o his eali y,
and he e o e hey ake ew measu es o e e he si ua ion [27]. In his same line, bu in he US
con ex , speak Gill e al. [26]. Howe e , i we analyze he esul s o ou in es iga ion in ega d o
he e osexis and homophobic beha io among s uden s om he pe spec i e o he s uden s
hemsel es, i can be concluded ha he e is an impo an le el o simila i y and
complemen a ion wi h he esul s ob ained o he eache s. In ac , 79% o he s uden s admi ed
o ha ing been wi nesses o he e osexis beha io among hemsel es “many” o “some imes”,
and a ound 64% o hem chose one o he wo highes alues o he scale o s a e ha hey had
been wi nesses o homophobic beha io among s uden s. This las igu e, e en hough i is
signi ican ly di e en han ha o he eache s (a ound 56%) ob iously complemen s he
eache s' igu e, and hei di e ences may be due o he le el o p i acy ha exis s in a g oup in
ela ion o ou side s, as i would be in he case o eache s.
Howe e , i needs o be highligh ed ha he signi ican di e ences a e main ained in he
case o men: s uden s obse e mo e o hese beha io s among hem; bu he e a e no signi ican
19
di e ences in he case o women. This is, he pe cen age o homophobic beha io among
s uden s as pe cei ed by emale eache s is no signi ican ly di e en han he homophobic
beha io pe cei ed by emale s uden s. The hypo hesis ha a ises could be summed up by his
ques ion: a e emale eache s mo e awa e o his p oblem han hei male coun e pa s, and is ha
why hei pe cep ion is mo e simila o he s uden s' pe cep ion han o hei pee s'?
In any case, i is o be s essed he ag eemen be ween he esul s o his esea ch on
homophobia and he e osexism among s uden s, and he esul s o he esea ch by Pied a e al. in
his ega d [27]. While one o he s udies akes on he pe spec i e o s uden s and eache s, and
he o he s udy akes exclusi ely on he pe spec i e o s uden s, hey come o simila conclusions
in ela ion o he pe cep ion o he e osexis and homophobic beha io om s uden o s uden .
The e o e, in spi e o he s uden s' opinion abou he deg ee o awa eness o hei eache s
on homophobia and he e osexism, he e is in ac a g ea pa i y be ween eache s and s uden s
when pe cei ing such beha io among s uden s. This is he case o such ex en ha , in he same
line as he esea ch by Mo ow and Gill [25], his esea ch con i ms ha PE eache s a e e y
awa e o he exis ence o homophobic and he e osexis beha io in PE.
Conce ning he e osexis and homophobic beha io om s uden s o PE eache s, se e al
aspec s s and ou . On he one hand, he e a e no iceable di e ences be ween he da a ob ained o
each o hese beha io s, since he e is a no iceable sca e ing o he da a in he case o
he e osexis beha io and a clea concen a ion o homophobic beha io o he alues “ ew
imes” and pa icula ly “ne e ”. This may be possibly explained by he ac ha socially
he e osexism is s ill he no m and less p oblema ic. Howe e , he e is mo e awa eness abou how
de oga o y and exa ious homophobic beha io is.
In his same line i needs o be s essed ha eache s ha e been wi nesses o he e osexis
beha io om s uden o eache in a la ge pe cen age han s uden s ha e, and he di e ences
a e signi ican . I is s iking ha eache s, who a e ou side s o he s uden s, a e able o spo such
beha io mo e o en, when i comes om he s uden s hemsel es. Possibly he lack o awa eness
o he s uden s abou how la ge a p oblem such beha io is, and as p e iously s a ed, he mo e
20
no mal cha ac e o i , jus i y hese esul s. Ei he way, he ac ha eache s a e mo e awa e o
his p oblem is a e y posi i e piece o da a, and as s a ed in he in e iews, hey s a aking
s eps owa ds applying speci ic measu es. I is ue ha hey lack o ganiza ion, sys ema iza ion,
and aining on speci ic ac ions, bu he e is a ce ain le el o awa eness ha in i es o be
op imis ic.
On he o he hand, i needs o be highligh ed ha eache s s a e ha hey ha e been
wi nesses o homophobic beha io om s uden o eache o a lesse pe cen age han s uden s
ha e. These esul s a e mo e expec ed and le eled han he p e ious ones, because ew eache s
and s uden s s a e ha hey ha e been wi ness o such beha io . The ac ha he highes alues
a e hose o he s uden s may be due o he ac ha hey belong o he g oup om whe e
homophobic beha io s a s, and o which he eache is an ou side . This con ex allows he
'pee s' o sha e a le el o in o ma ion, which does no happen wi h he eache s, who, aside om
no belonging o he p i a e ci cle, ep esen s a public au ho i y whom ob iously i is con enien
no o o end o a oid consequences as a s uden . Howe e , i is necessa y o s ess ha eache s
a e awa e ha his ype o beha io happens and hey pe cei e ha o be he case, e en i o a
lesse ex en han s uden s do.
Rela ing o pe sonal expe iences abou homophobic beha io caused by eache s, he e
a e e y ew cases, as i was o be expec ed; howe e he e a e signi ican di e ences be ween
eache s and s uden s wi hin he homosexual communi y. This is o say ha , signi ican ly,
homosexual s uden s a e mo e o en ic ims o homophobic beha io om hei eache s han
eache s a e ic ims o homophobic beha io om hei pee s. The e is a clea conclusion when
we look a his and couple i wi h he no iceable di e ences be ween homosexual eache s and
s uden s (in a o o he la e ), ega ding ha ing been ic ims o homophobic beha io om
o he s uden s: homosexual s uden s expe ience homophobic beha io bo h om s uden s and
eache s o a la ge ex en han homosexual eache s do. The i s a i ma ion, un o una ely, was
o be expec ed, and i is he ask o eache s o e e he si ua ion; bu he second a i ma ion is
wo ying, because i con i ms he exis ence o homophobia in he eache 's doings, a leas as
pe cei ed by homosexual s uden s.
21
Howe e , he e is ano he aspec o be highligh ed on he back o he p e ious a gumen :
he e osexual eache s a e he ones mos awa e o homophobic beha io owa ds hem om o he
eache s, albei wi hou eaching signi ican di e ences and always on he lowe pe cen ages. In
ac , no eache s who de ined hemsel es as homosexual o belonging o o he sexual o ien a ion
used any o he wo highes alues o he scale o indica e whe he hey had been ic im o
homophobic beha io om hei pee s. This si ua ion becomes e en mo e s iking when hey a e
asked whe he hey ha e been ic ims o homophobic beha io om s uden s, because he
pe cen age o he e osexual eache s who esponded a i ma i ely doubles up o he wo highes
alues o he scale, bu none o he eache s who belong o he LGBT communi y answe ed
“many imes” o “ ew imes”.
Looking a he da a i may be asked: Do LGBT eache s end o s ay hidden o in isible,
wi hou calling a en ion abou hei sexual p e e ence, in o de no o c ea e suspicions o be
s igma ized by o he eache s o hei own s uden s, and ha is why he signi ican di e ences
om homosexual s uden s and he e osexual eache s? This hypo hesis is suppo ed by he esul s
ob ained in he esea ch by De is e al. [16], Sykes [18], Cla ke [22] and Sa aç [23]. Howe e ,
he e will need o be esea ch ha obse es a la ge sample o male and emale PE eache s who
belong o he LGBT communi y, because he educed numbe o indi iduals belonging o he
LGBT communi y who o m pa o his s udy limi s he possibili ies o gene alizing he esul s,
despi e he di e ences poin ed ou .
Once he iew o eache s and s uden s ega ding homophobia and he e osexism du ing
PE lessons has been desc ibed, a ques ion a ises: how do hose esponsible o he subjec ac in
his ega d? This is o say, wha do eache s do? The use o language s ands ou in his ega d,
because i is he main he e ono ma i e ool, and, as i was o be expec ed (since s a ing wha is
poli ically co ec is usual), he pa icipan eache s indica e ha hey do no use homophobic
insul s, o sexis commen s, o hey ha e no conside ed only he e osexuali y o be wha is
'no mal'. Howe e , his same scena io does no occu in he case o he s uden s, whe e
homophobic and he e osexis language is clea ly used mo e ex ensi ely; in ac , he e a e
signi ican di e ences on he eache s' answe s ega ding he use o homophobic commen s, he
use o sexis commen s wi h homophobic in en ions, he use o he e osexis commen s, he use o

22
he e m 'no mal' (assuming ha he e osexuali y is he no m) and, o cou se, he use o an
inclusi e language. In spi e o his, and as a u u e subjec o esea ch, i would ha e o be
conside ed whe he he use o his ype o language among s uden s always has a pejo a i e
in en ion, o as he esea ch by McCo mack [31] shows, i is used as pa o he usual slang
among s uden s and i does no ca y a exa ious in en ion.
Ob ia ing McCo mack's heo y [31] as an explana ion o he ex ended uses o
homophobic and he e ono ma i e language among s uden s, he e a e clea di e ences om he
way eache s use language. Teache s use a mo e inclusi e, espec ul and disc imina ion- ee
language. In ac , we should no expec o he wise, since hei ask as educa o s wi h a high le el
o aining made hese esul s p edic able.
When looking deepe in o he linguis ic di e ences be ween s uden s and eache s, we
obse e signi ican di e ences among men when making he e osexis commen s, and a mo e
equen use o hem by s uden s. I is in e es ing ha hese di e ences do no exis in he case o
women, his is, he pe cen age o emale s uden s who make he e osexis commen s is no only
smalle han he pe cen age o male s uden s, bu also i is no e y di e en om he pe cen age
o emale eache s. Besides, as i can be deduced, hose emale eache s make commen s o his
kind less equen ly han hei male coun e pa s. In his way i again a ises (and in ac i is
complemen a y) he hypo hesis ega ding emale eache s being mo e conscious o he p oblem,
which could be ex ended o he emale gende as a whole. O pe haps he e i anspi es he
he e osexis s e eo ype whe eby he man is ough and s ong, while he woman mus be
unde s anding and lo ing?
In any case, he ac is ha he main ool o s igma iza ion o he LGBT communi y,
language, is appa en ly aken well ca e o by eache s in o de o ee i om he e ono ma i e
in luences. This si ua ion, pe se, could be key o c ea e an inclusi e clima e du ing PE lessons.
Howe e , he esea ch by Pied a e al. and by Gill e al. indica e ha , acco ding o s uden s, PE
eache s ail in hei a emp o c ea e a sa e and inclusi e en i onmen o all pupils du ing hei
lessons [26-27]. I eache s a e so cau ious when using language, how come do hey ail
23
mise ably when c ea ing an inclusi e en i onmen ? Is i ha pe haps, as poin ed ou ea lie , he
pa icipan eache s answe ed in he “poli ically co ec ” way?
This s iking di e gence be ween he pe spec i e o he s uden s and he eache s call o
new esea ch o look in o he daily eali y o he ma e a he han in o each o he pa ies'
pe spec i e. In his way a clea e de ini ion on how homophobia and he e osexism mani es s in
PE could be ob ained, and om his s a ing poin he measu es in his ega d would be mo e
accu a e.
As a co olla y i is possible o s a e ha , e en hough eache s and s uden s a e ai ly
conscious o he e osexis and homophobic beha io expe ienced by he quee collec i e du ing
PE lessons, he e is s ill some wo k o be done o p opose e ec i e measu es o de-ma ginalized
hese s uden s [37]. Besides, un o una ely, he case o quee eache s is e en wo s in ha he e
is no a minimum le el o awa eness o he p oblem hey li e, which is why a i s s ep o e e
his eali y has no been aken ye .
CONCLUSION
Ou esea ch ul ills he goal se , as i desc ibes he disc imina ion based on sexual
o ien a ion, which occu s in PE lessons in Spain. In his ega d i is obse ed ha bo h male and
emale PE eache s a e ai ly awa e o such eali y du ing hei lessons; in ac , he e is pa i y
be ween s uden s and eache s when i comes o pe cei ing homophobic o he e osexis beha io
among s uden s. Homophobic o he e osexis beha io among eache s is signi ican ly less
equen ; ob iously hei ole as educa o s and hei posi ion as public au ho i y bene i he many
di e ences in espec o he s uden s. Pe haps he ala ming hing would ha e been ha he e
we e no such di e ences, howe e he e will be necessa y o ca y ou u he esea ch using a
sample o eache s and s uden s belonging o he LGBT communi y, because hey un o una ely
end o be ic ims o such beha io . Fu u e esea ch may con i m and complemen his
conclusion.
24
On he o he hand, and ela ing o he managemen o such disc imina ion du ing PE
lessons, i needs o be highligh ed ha language, as he main he e ono ma i e and homophobic
ool, is used by eache s in an inclusi e way and espec ing di e en sexual o ien a ions –
especially by women. Howe e , i needs o be speci ied ha he e is he possibili y ha eache s
may ha e ansmi ed a poli ically co ec communica ion, and ha hey ha e no sha ed hei
ue poin o iew abou sexuali y, he LGBT communi y, e c., o ea o opp ession o c i icism.
Tha is why we p opose ha u u e in es iga ions use quali a i e me hods o add ess his speci ic
poin , in o de o desc ibe mo e accu a ely and deeply he opinions o he eache s, and he e o e
con i m whe he hey a e ac ually poli ically co ec o hey hide hei ue opinion.
Wi h e e ence o he use o language among s uden s, his esea ch shows ha a
homophobic and he e osexis language is mo e commonly used; howe e u he esea ch will be
needed o de e mine whe he his language has a posi i e pejo a i e cha ac e o i is simply pa
o he slang o he g oup.
Finally, in he ma e o implemen ing conc e e measu es o change his eali y, i needs
o be no ed a lack o o ganiza ion, sys ema iza ion, and o e all aining o he eache s, when i
comes down o speci y ac ions ha help o c ea e a clima e which is sa e and ee o
disc imina ion du ing PE lessons. Tha is why, e en hough we ha e p oposed some u u e
ac ions, we hink ha he main ac ion would be o in es iga e he daily eali y in PE ega ding
homophobia and he e osexism, a he han he poin s o iew and expe iences o s uden s and
eache s; i would be a ma e o s udying he daily eali y in si u, using di ec obse a ion,
discussion g oups. In his way a mo e clea de ini ion o homophobic and he e osexis beha io
in his subjec could be ob ained. F om his poin on, and aking in o accoun he pe cep ions ha
he s uden s and eache s s a ed in his esea ch, speci ic measu es o e e he cu en si ua ion
could be p oposed, applied and e alua ed.
REFERENCES
25
[1] Vidiella, J. (2007). El depo e y la ac i idad ísica como mediado es de modelos
co po ales: géne o y sexualidad en el ap endizaje de las masculinidades. Educación
Física y Ciencia, 9, 1-20.
[2] Vicen e, M. (2010). Educación ísica e ideología. C eencias pedagógicas y
dominación cul u al en las enseñanzas cul u ales del cue po. Re os. Nue as endencias en
Educación Física, Depo e y Rec eación, 17, 76-85.
[3] Sc a on, S. (2013). Feminism and Physical Educa ion: does gende s ill ma e ? In G.
P is e , & M.K. Sisjo d (eds.), Gende and Spo . Changes and Challenges (pp. 199-216).
Müns e : Waxmann.
[4] Wa ne , M. (1991). Fea o a Quee Plane . Social Tex , 29, 3-17.
[5] Cohen, C.J. (1997). Punks, bulldagge s, and wel a e queens: he adical po en ial o
quee poli ics. Gay, Lesbian Qua e ly, 3, 437-465.
[6] Plumme , D. (1999). One o he Boys: Masculini y, Homophobia and Mode n
Manhood. New Yo k: Ha ing on Pa k P ess.
[7] Hyde, S., & Delama e , I.D. (2006). Unde s anding human sexuali y (9 h ed.).
Bos on:McG aw-Hill.
[8] Kimmel, M. (1994). Masculini y as Homophobia. Fea , Shame and Silence in he
Cons uc ion o Gende Iden i y. In H. B od, & M. Kau man (eds.), Theo izing
Masculini ies (pp. 147-151). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
[9] Ay azo, S., & Su he land, S. (2009). Unco e ing he sec e s: Homophobia in Physical
Educa ion. Ac ion in Teache Educa ion, 31(3), 56-69.
[10] Hemphill, D., & Symons, C. (2009). Sexuali y Ma e s in Physical Educa ion and
Spo S udies. Ques , 61(4), 397-417.
[11] McCaugh y, N., Dillon, S.R., Jones, E., & Smigell, S. (2005). Sexuali y sensi i e
schooling. Ques , 57(4), 426-443.
[12] O’B ien, K.S., Sho el on, H., & La ne , J.D. (2013). Homophobia in physical
educa ion and spo : The ole o physical/spo ing iden i y and a ibu es, au ho i a ian
agg ession, and social dominance o ien a ion. In e na ional Jou nal o Psychology, 48(5),
891-899.