"Gender in schools": what is actually taught in Italy

“They teach gender to children at school.” “Gender books in primary schools indoctrinate the youngest.” “Drag queens do gender propaganda in classrooms.” These statements have been circulating for years in the Italian public debate, in newspaper headlines, in political campaigns, and in worried parents’ group chats. But do they correspond to reality?

To answer, we must do what is often lacking in the debate: look at the facts. What do Italian laws mandate? What do school programs actually contain? What does scientific research say? This article analyzes point by point what happens in Italian schools, comparing it with the European panorama and the evidence from international literature.

What is actually taught in Italian schools

The starting point is simple and verifiable: Italy does not have a mandatory school sex education program. It never has. Since 1975, more than sixteen legislative proposals have been submitted to introduce the subject, but none has ever been approved [12].

What Italian schools are required to do, by law, is something different. Law 107/2015 (the so-called “Good School” reform), in paragraph 16 of article 1, establishes that the three-year education plan must “ensure the implementation of equal opportunity principles, promoting in schools of all levels education for gender equality, prevention of gender-based violence, and all forms of discrimination” [1].

There is no mention of sex education. No mention of ”gender theory.” It speaks of equal opportunities, respect, and prevention of violence. These are the topics mandated by law.

The 2015 MIUR note

The scope of this paragraph was the subject of concern from many families, partly due to media coverage that was not always accurate. The Ministry of Education intervened with note prot. 1972 of September 15, 2015, in which it explicitly clarified that “among the rights and duties and among the knowledge to be transmitted, neither ‘gender ideologies’ nor the teaching of practices extraneous to the educational world are included in any way” [2].

The document specified that the objective of paragraph 16 was the transmission of knowledge and awareness-raising on rights and duties guaranteed by the Constitution, not the promotion of ideologies of any kind.

The “Educating for Respect” Guidelines (2017)

In 2017, the MIUR published the National Guidelines “Educating for Respect,” implementing paragraph 16 of Law 107/2015 [3]. The document outlines an educational framework based on three pillars:

• Education for gender equality, to counter stereotypes and gender-based prejudices
• Prevention of gender-based violence, consistent with the Extraordinary Plan against sexual and gender-based violence
• Countering all forms of discrimination, including those based on sexual orientation and gender identity

The Guidelines fit within the framework of civic education and citizenship competencies. They do not provide for a separate subject, but for a cross-cutting approach that pervades the entire educational relationship. In other words: teaching respect and non-discrimination is part of the school’s educational mission, as provided by Article 3 of the Italian Constitution.

Education for differences: what it actually contains

When people talk about “gender programs in schools,” they often refer to education for differences initiatives: projects promoted by networks of associations that work in education with children, adolescents, and adults to promote respect for persons and counter all forms of discrimination [13].

What do these programs actually contain? Not what the alarmist narrative suggests. Typical contents include:

• Reading of picture books that present diverse family models (single-parent families, extended families, families with same-sex parents) to reflect on the plurality of experiences
• Workshops on gender stereotypes, where children explore why certain toys, colors, or professions are associated with a specific gender
• Activities on emotion management, empathy, and recognition of one’s own feelings
• Bullying prevention programs, with specific attention to homophobic and transphobic bullying
• Education on consent and personal boundaries, fundamental also for abuse prevention

These activities do not “teach children to change sex” and do not propose any “doctrine.” They teach that differences exist, that they deserve respect, and that violence and discrimination are not acceptable. These are educational principles, not ideological ones.

The incriminated books

Periodically, titles such as Piccolo uovo by Francesca Pardi or And Tango Makes Three by Richardson and Parnell are identified as tools of “gender propaganda.” These are picture books that tell stories of diverse families or characters who do not conform to gender stereotypes.

These books are not part of any mandatory ministerial program. When used, they are part of extracurricular projects approved by school boards. Their presence in a school library does not equal “indoctrination”: it equals offering children plural representations of the reality they live in.

Italy without sex education: a European anomaly

To understand the peculiarity of the Italian situation, it is useful to look beyond national borders. In Europe, over 20 countries require sex education as a mandatory curricular subject [12][14]. Italy is among the few European Union countries that do not, alongside Bulgaria, Cyprus, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, and Hungary.

How it works in other countries

Sweden was the first European country to make sex education mandatory in schools, in 1955. Today the subject is called “Sexuality, Consent, and Relationships” and is integrated into the curriculum from primary school, with age-appropriate content: body awareness and abuse prevention in nursery school, body respect in primary schools, sexuality and contraception in secondary schools. Teachers receive specific university training [12].

In Germany it has been mandatory since 1968, in Denmark since 1970, in France since 2001. In none of these countries can parents exempt their children [12][14]. Sex education is considered a tool for child protection and public health promotion.

WHO Standards for Europe

In 2010, the WHO Regional Office for Europe, in collaboration with BZgA (German Federal Centre for Health Education), published the Standards for Sexuality Education in Europe [9]. The document provides a framework for holistic, age-appropriate, evidence-based sex education that respects human rights.

The Standards recommend a gradual approach: for the youngest children (0-6 years), topics concern body discovery, emotions, and the concept of consent (“my body belongs to me”); for older groups, content expands to include contraception, sexually transmitted infections, and respect for diversity. This is not about “sexualizing children,” but about providing age-appropriate awareness tools to prevent abuse and risky behaviors.

Anti-gender campaigns in Italian schools

Starting from 2013-2014, the debate on the so-called ”gender ideology” in schools exploded in Italy, fueled by a series of media and political campaigns.

The context: 2013-2016

Between 2013 and 2016, several groups inspired by pro-life and pro-family agendas conducted a vast campaign against the introduction of education-for-differences programs in schools. These mobilizations fit within a broader context of opposition to civil unions for same-sex couples and the Scalfarotto bill against homo-transphobia.

The Family Day demonstrations (2015 and 2016) brought hundreds of thousands of people to the streets, with rhetoric centered on the defense of the “natural family” and the denunciation of an alleged “ideological colonization” of schools. The Sentinelle in Piedi (Standing Sentinels) movement, born in 2013, organized silent protests in many Italian cities, claiming that anti-discrimination programs in schools were actually propaganda tools [3].

The withdrawal strategy

One of the concrete consequences of these campaigns was the spread of pre-filled forms with which families requested the withdrawal of their children from any school activity related to education for differences. In many cases, the forms referred to a “gender ideology” that school programs did not contain and have never contained.

This phenomenon had real effects: some school principals, faced with family pressure and the lack of clear regulations, gave up proposing projects on respect for differences, even when fully legitimate and consistent with ministerial guidelines.

The effect on schools

The most significant impact of these campaigns was not the elimination of programs that did not exist as mandatory curriculum, but the climate of self-censorship that was created in many schools. Teachers who addressed topics such as homophobic bullying, rainbow families, or gender stereotypes found themselves exposed to controversies, reports, and, in some cases, disciplinary proceedings.

The paradoxical result: in a country that already lacked structured sex education, the anti-gender campaigns made it even more difficult to talk about respect, differences, and affectivity in schools.

The case of drag queens in schools

Among the recurring narratives in the Italian debate is that of “drag queens sent to schools to do gender propaganda.” What actually happened?

The documented cases concern isolated episodes in which drag artists were invited to schools for cultural activities. A case that received great media attention was the meeting at Liceo Munari in Acerra (Naples), where drag queen Priscilla spoke with students about bullying, homophobia, and civil rights, with the approval of the school board.

These meetings are not part of any ministerial program. They are not mandatory. They are not systematically widespread. They are one-off initiatives, organized within the framework of school autonomy, analogous to any other meeting with an external guest (a writer, a magistrate, an artist).

The narrative that presents them as a widespread and organized phenomenon of “indoctrination” does not correspond to documented reality: they are exceptions, not the rule, and they take place in compliance with the decision-making procedures established for every school activity.

The Valditara bill: what it provides

On December 3, 2025, the Chamber of Deputies approved with 151 votes in favor, 113 against, and 1 abstention the bill promoted by Education Minister Giuseppe Valditara, which introduces new rules for sexual and affective education in schools [4][5].

Rules for each school level

The bill provides different provisions depending on school level:

• Nursery and primary schools: a total ban on specific activities related to sexuality, affectivity, sexual orientation, and gender identity
• Lower and upper secondary schools (middle and high schools): activities are permitted, but only with prior written parental consent
• Schools must send families all teaching materials (slides, videos, texts) at least seven days before the activities begin

Reactions

The bill generated a broad and polarized debate.

Supporters argue that informed consent guarantees the constitutional right of parents to decide on their children’s education, and that the restrictions serve to protect younger children from age-inappropriate content.

Critics, including numerous scientific and professional organizations, argue the bill will make an already insufficient educational offering even more lacking. Nine regional orders of psychologists (Abruzzo, Basilicata, Campania, Emilia-Romagna, Lazio, Marche, Puglia, Sicily, and Veneto) formally requested a revision of the bill, calling sexual-affective education “a resource, not a risk” [6].

The president of the National Council of the Order of Psychologists, Maria Antonietta Gulino, wrote to the Prime Minister’s Office stating that “banning sexual, affective, or ethical education in schools can constitute a dangerous obstacle to the sexual, affective, and relational development of children and adolescents” [7].

Status of the legislative process

At the time of writing this article (March 2026), the bill has been approved by the Chamber but still needs to be voted on by the Senate to become law.

What scientific research says

One of the most neglected aspects of the public debate is what international scientific literature says about sexual and affective education. The evidence is broad and consistent.

Documented benefits

UNESCO, in its 2018 international technical guidance on sexuality education, based on a systematic review of evidence conducted by the University of Oxford, identified a series of benefits associated with comprehensive, age-appropriate sex education programs [10]:

• Delay in the age of first sexual intercourse, not its acceleration (contrary to what some parents fear)
• Greater use of contraceptives and reduction of risky behaviors
• Reduction of unintended pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections
• Better knowledge of one’s body and relationships
• Greater ability to recognize and report sexual abuse
• Prevention of gender-based violence in relationships

Scientific research specifically debunks the fear that providing correct, age-appropriate information about sexuality pushes young people to have early intercourse. On the contrary, data show that sex education helps manage sexuality more consciously and responsibly.

The Council of Europe’s position

The Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe stated that “comprehensive sex education protects children and helps build a safer, more inclusive society,” deriving this right from the right to health, information, and quality education [11].

Italian data

Italian data confirm the international picture. A survey conducted by IPSOS for Save the Children in 2024, on a sample of 800 adolescents between 14 and 18 years old, found that [8]:

• Only 47% of adolescents had received some form of sex education at school
• 82% of those who participated in sex education courses rated them “very useful and enriching”
• 91% of parents said they were in favor of introducing mandatory sex education programs in schools
• 47% of adolescents get their information about sexuality mainly through websites and online articles, in the absence of reliable institutional sources
• Only 12% had ever visited a family planning center

These data suggest that the problem is not an excess of sex education in schools, but a chronic deficiency. In the absence of institutional information, adolescents educate themselves online, with all the risks associated with misinformation and exposure to inappropriate content.

Informed consent: how it works

The topic of parental consent deserves deeper examination, as it is at the center of the current debate.

The situation before the Valditara bill

Even before the Valditara bill, Italian schools did not operate in a regulatory vacuum. Extracurricular activities — including education-for-differences projects, meetings with external experts, and workshops on specific topics — are approved by the School Board, a collegial body that also includes parent representatives.

In many schools, for activities on sensitive topics (such as the alias career), it was already common practice to inform families and, in some cases, offer the option to opt out. The principle of family involvement is therefore not a novelty: it was already part of school practice, albeit in different and non-uniform forms across the national territory.

What changes with the Valditara bill

The Valditara bill transforms this practice into a legal obligation and makes it more stringent:

• Consent becomes mandatory and prior (it is not enough to inform: written authorization is required)
• Teaching materials must be sent at least seven days in advance
• For nursery and primary schools, consent is not sufficient: activities are banned entirely

Critics of the bill observe that the opt-in mechanism (active consent) rather than opt-out (participation unless exempted) risks excluding precisely the minors who would most need these activities: those whose families do not fill out the forms due to indifference or language difficulties, and those who live in contexts where sexuality topics are taboo or where they suffer violence or abuse.

European comparison: a summary

For a summary overview, here is how Italy compares to other European countries:

Country	Mandatory sex education	Since when	Parental exemption
Sweden	Yes	1955	No
Germany	Yes	1968	No
Denmark	Yes	1970	No
France	Yes	2001	No
Spain	Yes	With regional variants	No
Netherlands	Yes	2012	No
Italy	No	Never introduced	Not applicable

In total, over 20 European countries require sex education as a mandatory subject [12][14]. Only 10 have developed comprehensive sex education programs with a holistic approach, in line with WHO and UNESCO recommendations. In countries where this model is active, studies document less anxiety among adolescents, greater awareness of rights, and reduction in violence and exploitation [9][10].

Italy not only lacks a mandatory program: with the Valditara bill, it risks making it even more difficult to offer the optional programs that some schools were already providing.

What can be done

For parents: get informed about the specific content of projects proposed by the school before expressing a judgment; participate in school boards, where these activities are discussed and approved; remember that education for respect is a legal obligation, not an ideological option.

For teachers: education for respect of differences falls within citizenship competencies and can be addressed cross-sectionally, in every discipline. The 2017 “Educating for Respect” Guidelines provide a solid institutional framework [3].

For students: getting informed is a right. Family planning centers, the Ministry of Health, and organizations like Save the Children offer validated information. In cases of discrimination or bullying, you can turn to the school principal, the school psychologist, or Telefono Amico (02 2327 2327).

Conclusion

The narrative of “gender indoctrination in schools” clashes with a very different reality: a country where sex education has never been introduced as a mandatory subject, where education-for-differences programs are optional and approved by collegial bodies, and where international scientific evidence indicates that informing young people correctly and appropriately for their age is not a risk, but a protection.

The question is not whether Italian schools teach “too much” about gender and sexuality. The data say the opposite: too little is taught. And the price of this deficiency is paid by young people, who educate themselves online, without critical tools and without the guidance of competent adults.

Educating for respect is not ideology. It is the fundamental task of schools in a democratic society.