Parental attitudes towards sexual orientation and gender diversity: challenging LGBT discrimination in Australian schools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As Australia considers legislative reform regarding the rights of religious schools to discriminate against LGBT students and staff, claims are often made that religious parents or those enrolling children in religious schools do not affirm diversity of sexuality or gender. Using a national dataset of parents (n = 2418), attitudes towards sexual orientation, gender diversity, homophobia and transphobia were examined. Across all religiosities, school sectors and attitudinal statements, significant majorities of parents reported positive attitudes (62.7%–93.5%). Only small minorities expressly reported negative attitudes (1.6%–20.2%). Pairwise religiosity comparisons between parents with children only at a secular school, versus any religious school, revealed few differences. Amongst Catholic parents, those with children at Catholic schools and those with children only at secular schools, held similar attitudes towards LGBT issues and a majority held favourable attitudes, suggesting most Catholic parents who enrol their children in Catholic schools do so despite or in ignorance of Catholic doctrine. Findings suggest a significant majority of parents sending children to religious schools hold supportive attitudes towards diverse sexual orientations, gender diversity, and actions to address homophobia and transphobia. This empirical evidence contradicts religious schools’ calls for the rights to discriminate against LGBT persons based on parental values and attitudes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".