I think this clearly shows the twists and turns in the identity formation process for LGBTQ+ youth, who also have to deal with cultural and racial expectations. Their issues are more about how to come out - in their culture, which may emphasize conformity, family responsibilities, or silence when talking about sexuality, who are they? What can they do? Where are they? What will happen if they come out? Multiracial or collectivist families will be significantly affected because multiple parties will try to convince them to accept a single identity. And I think it is important to note that youth and their identities are very individual and cannot and should not be judged from the perspective of LGBTQ+ or race alone. This shows that providing the necessary support for LGBTQ+ youth should also be in line with the sociocultural status and concept of intersectionality of this community.

This quote highlights a major problem that arises when people assume that being neutral means being fair. When schools, or more specifically teachers, are reluctant to take a stance on topics like sexual orientation and gender, it’s not that they are standing aside, it’s that they are inadvertently leaving LGBTQ students behind. The latter’s choices are integral. This results in a lack of positive education, and I would argue a lack of open dialogue between students, where the former’s discussions are replaced by the latter, which can be interpreted as the former feeling rejected or ignored. It also leaves the impression that these topics are taboo and should not be discussed, rather than that they should be seen as a legitimate and necessary part of a student’s identity. In reality, neutrality in this case precisely preserves harmful concepts, rather than removing them.

This passage highlights a situation where even if the target of harassment is not directly involved, it can still undermine the overall learning climate for everyone. In an environment where bullying or sexual harassment is condoned, it actually systematically perpetuates this intolerance. Not only does this environment make students feel physically powerless and encourages the objectification of gender and sexual orientation, it also supports this objectification. Therefore, schools should recognize that remaining passive is not only detrimental to those who are directly harassed, but it can also lead to a deterioration of the entire learning environment.

This statement clearly describes the dangers posed by education professionals or leaders who are not aware of the law. If school staff do not fully understand the concepts of harassment or discrimination, they may not take action when it is truly necessary. Therefore, these "category errors" are not just procedural errors, but lead to serious deficiencies in protections, especially when it comes to LGBTQ students or students who are discriminated against because of their gender. This explains why training must be comprehensive and must keep staff and students informed in order to achieve a truly safe learning environment.

This quote reinforces the idea that LGBTQ youth face the worst violence not in isolated settings, but rather in everyday situations of discrimination and indifference. Exclusionary bullying and bigoted rhetoric that often occur in schools create an atmosphere where the most extreme threatening behavior occurs. The quote states that schools should also combat “mild” homophobia and transphobia, because turning a blind eye to these behaviors directly contributes to a viral culture that is deadly to human life.

This section highlights the importance of respecting individual perspectives when it comes to visibility. Public acknowledgment can raise public awareness and even help to mainstream diverse identities, but we should not forget that not everyone chooses to be public about their identity, and I believe that this is their life choice and should not be ignored. For trans and LGBTQ students, privacy is a safe path. Therefore, schools must strongly support both pathways: those who want to be public and those who choose to remain anonymous - because both are equally important and both are about the deepest personal feelings. The most important thing is to design a safe space that respects each student.

Isn’t it incredible how similar sexism and homophobia are? “Girl” itself implies a negative attitude towards the male feminine other and suggests that the feminine qualities of men are inherently less valuable. This further explains the intolerant nature of homophobia, where not only sexual orientation, but also gender form can be enforced and punished. Control over heterosexuality can stem from an unwillingness to uphold traditional masculinity, and fear of marginalized queer communities and those who do not conform to male roles still exists.

This brings me to my earlier discussion of gender expectations, which aren’t just “a girls’ problem” but affect all students in various forms. The article says that while women’s roles and dress are the first to change, gender restrictions still exist in schools. Dress codes are no longer the only issue, but rather the broader restrictions placed on students—in terms of behavior, appearance, and interactions—derive from old gendered ideas. This ties into situations where schools passively foster stereotypes, even those that are moving in the direction of gender balance.

Thorne’s statement, as well as the studies mentioned above, remind us that gender-based traditional expectations, especially when it comes to conformity, can place an additional socialization burden on girls, just as dress codes often unfairly target women. It’s not just about what to wear; it’s about the control of gender by social rules and everyday activities. This is evident in the broader school environment, where gender-specific power relations influence students’ daily lives, often in subtle but harmful ways.

This section at the beginning of the article introduces Horace Mann's belief that public education is a moral necessity for a just society. So I think it is very illuminating because it reveals an early argument that education is a public good rather than a private privilege.