Abstract
This qualitative case study examined how LGBTQ+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer+) parents in South Africa disrupt intergenerational patterns of sexuality silence through innovative family communication strategies. The study employed purposive and snowball sampling to recruit six diverse LGBTQ+ families from Gauteng Province consisting of seven parents and five adolescent children. Data collection involved arts-based methodologies followed by semi-structured interviews. Data analysis followed Braun and Clarke’s six-step thematic analysis framework guided by queering family communication theory. Four transformative strategies emerged: integrating sexuality discussions within daily routines, utilizing media resources, embodying inclusive values through authentic living, and cultivating environments that welcome questioning. These findings have practical significance for family practitioners, social workers, educators, and policymakers seeking evidence-based approaches to support LGBTQ+ families in developing healthy communication patterns and creating inclusive institutional environments. These practices constitute deliberate acts of resistance against heteronormative regulation, though findings reflect the experiences of urban, middle-class families with access to resources and supportive networks. While participants developed innovative communication approaches, the study highlights both family resilience and the ongoing structural barriers that necessitate such intensive protective strategies.
Keywords
South Africa’s constitutional framework provides progressive LGBTQ+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer+) protections, yet there are significant disparities between legal provisions and lived realities, creating challenging environments for LGBTQ+ families (Francis, 2017). These families navigate entrenched colonial and patriarchal discourses that characterize LGBTQ+ identities as “un-African” and “Western imports” (Matebeni et al., 2018), while confronting educational institutions that maintain heteronormative orientations and systematically exclude sexual and gender diversity (Mayeza & Vincent, 2018; Rossouw, 2023). Such institutional limitations elevate the critical importance of family-based sexuality communication. Research demonstrates that open and affirming communication patterns serve protective functions for child development, while restrictive approaches increase vulnerability to negative outcomes (Flores & Barroso, 2017). Within African contexts, recent scholarship has highlighted how LGBTQ+ individuals and families continue to navigate complex social environments where institutional discrimination persists despite progressive legal frameworks in some countries (Francis, 2022; Mogotsi et al., 2024). Research demonstrates that family communication remains particularly challenging, with educational institutions often functioning as sites where heteronormative assumptions are reinforced rather than challenged. However, this knowledge base predominantly reflects heterosexual, nuclear family experiences, leaving substantial gaps in understanding how diverse family structures develop effective communication practices.
For children with LGBTQ+ parents, effective communication becomes essential rather than merely beneficial. These children navigate heteronormative social environments that may explicitly or implicitly delegitimize their family structures. This makes effective family communication crucial for their psychological resilience and healthy identity formation (Dorri et al., 2023).
Within South Africa, existing LGBTQ+ family research has concentrated on family formation processes (Morison et al., 2019), adult children’s retrospective experiences (Breshears & Lubbe-De Beer, 2016), and young men with LGBTQ+ parents and their navigation of heteronormative expectations (Matabane, 2022). Contemporary research has further documented how LGBTQ+ families must negotiate educational systems that continue to marginalize diverse family structures, requiring sophisticated communication strategies to support children’s resilience (Francis, 2022). African scholarship emphasizes that despite constitutional protections, family acceptance and communication patterns remain significantly influenced by broader social stigma and institutional discrimination (Mogotsi et al., 2024). However, this scholarship has overlooked the dynamic processes through which LGBTQ+ parents develop sexuality communication strategies within the country’s distinctive sociocultural landscape of cultural diversity, religious conservatism, and ongoing transformation.
This study addresses these gaps by examining innovative communication strategies that LGBTQ+ parents employ to disrupt intergenerational cycles of silence, shame, and misinformation surrounding sexuality. Beyond filling a knowledge gap, this research has the potential to provoke conceptual shifts in family communication theory by demonstrating how marginalized families function as sites of innovation and resistance. The findings may inform policy shifts in educational and health care settings by providing evidence-based approaches developed by families navigating complex social contexts. The research positions LGBTQ+ families not as deviant departures from heteronormative structures requiring correction, but as innovative sites of resistance and transformation that develop sophisticated practices with broader applicability.
Theoretical Framework
This study employs a comprehensive theoretical framework integrating queer theory and family communication theory to analyze sexuality communication within LGBTQ+ families. This integrated approach of “queering family communication theory” provides a nuanced understanding of how LGBTQ+ families construct meaning while challenging heteronormative assumptions.
Queer theory provides essential tools for interrogating dominant discourses about normative identities, and examining how social constructs function to marginalize and exclude certain groups while privileging others (Butler, 1990; Sedgwick, 1990). Within this study, queer theory offers an analytical framework for understanding how LGBTQ+ parents actively resist and destabilize heteronormative assumptions about sexuality communication, while developing alternative practices that validate diverse identities and relationships. Butler’s (1990) concept of performativity illustrates how gender and sexuality categories are socially constructed through repeated acts. This provides insights into how families engage in ongoing identity navigation through communication practices.
Family communication theory examines how families construct shared meanings, negotiate relationships, and maintain consistency through their communication practices (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002). This theoretical approach offers insights into interaction patterns, decision-making processes, power dynamics, and information exchange within family systems regarding sexuality conversations. The theory’s attention to both conversation orientation (the degree to which families encourage open communication) and conformity orientation (the degree to which families emphasize hierarchy and obedience) (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002) provides a useful frameworks for analyzing how LGBTQ+ families navigate tensions between openness and protection. For LGBTQ+ families, this balance becomes particularly complex and strategic. High conversation orientation enables open sexuality discussions that build children’s knowledge and confidence yet must be carefully modulated when children move between affirming home environments and potentially discriminatory public contexts. Parents must strategically determine when openness serves protective functions versus when it might expose children to harm. This creates a dynamic form of family communication where conversation and conformity orientations shift contextually. Families may maintain high conversation orientation within private spaces while teaching children strategic conformity behaviors for survival in heteronormative public settings. Traditional family communication typologies do not adequately capture these sophisticated protective strategies that LGBTQ+ families develop.
The synthesis of these theoretical perspectives allows investigation of how LGBTQ+ parents and their children disrupt heteronormative assumptions about family communication (Chevrette, 2013) and develop and sustain identities through communication despite social marginalization. In addition, it allows understanding LGBTQ+ parents’ distinctive approaches for sexuality discussions, and balance LGBTQ+-affirming private home environments with potentially hostile public contexts while maintaining family coherence and child well-being. This integrated framework recognizes the political dimensions of family communication, understanding that seemingly private family practices occur within and respond to broader systems of power and control. Therefore, the communication strategies developed by LGBTQ+ parents represent both personal choices and forms of resistance to heteronormative regulation of family life.
Method
Research Design
This qualitative study operates within a constructivist paradigm, recognizing that knowledge is socially constructed through interactions between individuals and their social contexts (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). This paradigmatic approach is particularly appropriate for understanding how LGBTQ+ families create meaning through communication practices within the South African context, where cultural diversity, historical inequality, and ongoing transformation shape family experiences. The constructivist framework acknowledges that participants are experts on their own experiences while recognizing that these experiences are embedded within broader social, cultural, and political contexts.
This study, conducted in 2024, employed a case study methodology to investigate sexuality communication practices between LGBTQ+ parents and their adolescent children in South Africa. The research focus extends beyond individual lived experiences to examine complex family communication dynamics within specific sociocultural contexts. Case study design enables investigation of how communication strategies develop and function within bounded family systems (Yin, 2009), while the specific application to the diverse South African context allows examination of how cultural, racial, and socioeconomic factors influence family communication innovations. Each participating family constituted a case, allowing examination of how theoretical concepts manifest in real-world family practices while maintaining sensitivity to individual family dynamics and cultural positioning.
The case study approach proved essential for capturing the relational nature of family communication, as sexuality conversations involve multiple family members, occur across time, and respond to changing social contexts. This design allowed investigation of how parents’ communication strategies developed in response to their children’s developmental needs, social pressures, and family histories, while examining how children experienced and responded to these approaches.
Participants and Sampling
Six LGBTQ+ families from Gauteng Province participated in this study. Purposive sampling was employed to deliberately select participants based on their expertise in the phenomenon of interest (Etikan et al., 2015): LGBTQ+ parents engaging in sexuality conversations with their children. This approach ensured participants possessed relevant knowledge and experiences related to the research focus. Snowball sampling was subsequently utilized, with initial participants providing referrals to identify additional families meeting the inclusion criteria. This methodological approach is supported by Johnson (2005), who notes the value of referral-based sampling when accessing sensitive or potentially reticent populations through trusted networks.
Inclusion criteria required families to consist of one or more LGBTQ+ identifying parent with an adolescent child aged 10 to 19 years in Grades 4 to 12. Families represented diverse configurations, including gay fathers with adopted children, lesbian mothers with biological children, blended families with multiple parental figures, and families, including nonbinary parents. Participants represented varied racial backgrounds, cultural contexts, and socioeconomic positioning across urban South African communities.
Data Collection
Data collection employed arts-based visual methodologies followed by in-depth discussions, designed to respect participant expertise while creating multiple avenues for expression. This approach recognized that traditional interview methods alone might inadequately capture the complex dimensions of family communication (Leavy, 2017).
Parent participants engaged in photo-voice methodology, selecting images they believed represented their approaches to sexuality communication with their children. These images guided comprehensive subsequent discussions where participants explored meanings embedded in their selected images while discussing communication histories, current practices, and challenges. Adolescent participants created collages illustrating their learning experiences about sexuality within their families, incorporating various materials to express their perspectives. This approach reduced power imbalances between researcher and participants while providing alternative expression methods for potentially difficult concepts (Clark-Ibáñez, 2004). Both visual activities were followed by semi-structured interviews allowing participants to elaborate on their visual representations and explore themes emerging from their creative work. The research was conducted separately without the other present.
Data Analysis
Thematic analysis followed Braun and Clarke’s (2006) systematic six-step framework with specific attention to the integrated theoretical framework. The process began with familiarization through multiple readings of interview transcripts alongside examination of visual materials to develop comprehensive understanding of participants’ communication experiences and family dynamics.
Initial coding operated both inductively from participant responses and deductively from the queering family communication theoretical framework. Codes such as “challenging heteronormativity,” “navigating cultural tensions,” “integrating daily conversations,” and “modeling diverse relationships” emerged from this dual approach. The theoretical framework guided attention to how families resist normative assumptions while developing alternative communication practices.
Related codes were grouped into broader themes through examining patterns of meaning and relationships between different elements. For example, codes about “natural conversations,” “ongoing discussions,” and “avoiding formal talks” clustered around the theme of “integrating sexuality into daily life.” Preliminary themes were reviewed against coded extracts and the entire data set to ensure coherence and theoretical alignment.
Theme refinement involved reviewing consistency with the queering family communication framework, ensuring each theme captured distinct aspects of family resistance and innovation. The constant comparative method enabled iterative movement between data, theoretical concepts, and developing analysis to maintain rigor and theoretical grounding.
Researcher Positionality
Both researchers hold opposing positionalities although both within the South African context. One researcher identifies as a cisgender, heterosexual researcher from outside the LGBTQ+ community. This researcher had to approach this study with awareness of their outsider status and potential biases. Their positioning required continuous reflexivity and commitment to centering participant voices rather than imposing external interpretations. They employed several strategies to bracket presumptions: maintaining reflective journals throughout the research process, engaging in regular supervision discussions about emerging biases, seeking participant feedback on interpretations where possible, and positioning participants as experts on their own experiences.
The second researcher identifies as a gay African man and LGBTQ+ parent, bringing lived experience of navigating sexuality conversations within an LGBTQ+ family context in South Africa. This insider status provided valuable insights into the challenges, strategies, and cultural nuances that LGBTQ+ parents face when discussing sexuality with their children. Their positionality offered several advantages: deep understanding of the emotional and practical complexities of LGBTQ+ parenting, familiarity with community resources and support networks, and personal experience of navigating heteronormative institutions as an LGBTQ+ parent.
However, this insider position also presented potential challenges requiring careful navigation. Their personal experiences could create assumptions about universal LGBTQ+ parenting approaches, potentially overlooking diversity within LGBTQ+ families. As a gay man, his experience differed from lesbian, bisexual, transgender, or nonbinary parents, therefore requiring attention to avoid generalizing from their specific identity location. His own navigation of LGBTQ+ parenting could potentially bias interpretation toward positive outcomes or minimize experiences from other families.
To address these potential biases, this researcher employed several reflexive strategies: maintaining awareness of how his specific identity (gay, male, parent) differed from other participants’ experiences, particularly lesbian mothers, gay fathers, and nonbinary parents; regularly examining how his own parenting philosophy and communication style might influence data interpretation; seeking to understand approaches that differed from his personal experience without judgment; and remaining attentive to intersectional differences related to race, class, culture, and family structure that might create different experiences from his own.
The contrasting positionalities of the researchers created both challenges and opportunities that were actively navigated throughout the research process. The outsider-insider dynamic required ongoing negotiation and mutual learning, with each researcher bringing distinct perspectives that enriched the analysis while requiring careful balance.
During data collection, the heterosexual researcher’s outsider status initially created skepticism among some potential participants, who questioned her motivations and ability to authentically represent LGBTQ+ family experiences. The LGBTQ+ researcher served as a bridge providing validation and assurance to community members about the research integrity. Conversely, the heterosexual researcher’s distance from the community sometimes enabled her to notice assumptions or patterns that the insider researcher might take for granted. The analysis process benefited from this dual perspective through regular collaborative discussions where each researcher challenged the other’s interpretations. The outsider researcher questioned assumptions about LGBTQ+ family practices that seemed obvious to the insider researcher, while the insider researcher provided cultural context and nuanced understanding that prevented misinterpretation of participant experiences. This dynamic tension ensured more rigorous and balanced analysis.
Both researchers maintained reflective journals documenting how their positionalities influenced their understanding of the data. Regular supervision meetings included explicit discussion of how each researcher’s background shaped their interpretation of findings. The arts-based methodology proved particularly valuable in managing these dynamics, as participants’ visual representations provided anchor points that reduced researcher interpretation bias while allowing both insider and outsider perspectives to inform understanding.
Ethical Considerations
Ethical clearance was obtained from the Stellenbosch University Ethics Committee (Project ID: 28756). All participants provided informed consent, with adolescents providing assent alongside parental consent. Confidentiality was maintained through use of pseudonyms for protective reasons and secure data storage.
Given the sensitive nature of the research topic and the potential for participants to disclose experiences of trauma or discrimination, a comprehensive referral system was established prior to data collection. This included partnerships with local LGBTQ+-affirming counseling services, family therapy practitioners, and support organizations. Participants were provided with resource lists at the beginning of each session, and researchers monitored for any signs of distress during interviews, with protocols in place for immediate referral when necessary. No participants required crisis intervention during the study period, though several expressed appreciations for the proactive support measures.
Findings
Table 1 presents the sociodemographic characteristics of participating families, illustrating the diversity within the sample regarding family structure, racial background, and children’s ages.
Participant Demographics.
The sample includes diverse family structures: single parents, coupled parents, and blended families with multiple parental figures. Children’s ages span early to late adolescence, representing various developmental stages.
Four primary themes emerged from the analysis, each demonstrating how LGBTQ+ parents actively disrupt intergenerational silence while developing affirming communication practices: (a) integrating sexuality topics into daily life, (b) utilizing media as educational tools, (c) modeling authenticity through daily living, and (d) creating environments for open inquiry (Table 2).
Conceptual Model of LGBTQ+ Family Communication Strategies.
A background context of the participating parents is provided to better interpret the identified themes. The analysis revealed sophisticated patterns demonstrating how LGBTQ+ parents actively disrupt and reconstruct intergenerational silence surrounding sexuality through deliberate communication innovations that function simultaneously as family practices and forms of political resistance. Results indicate that participating LGBTQ+ parents engaged in complex processes of critical reflection on their personal experiences of inadequate or harmful sexuality education. This is followed by intentional development of alternative approaches that challenge dominant cultural scripts while promoting family resilience and child empowerment.
Most parents described their childhood and adolescent experiences within conservative family environments where sexuality discussions were minimal, entirely absent, or characterized exclusively by risk-focused, fear-based messaging designed to control rather than educate. Ayanda reflected on her upbringing: “the only communication between ourselves and our grandmother was how to get ready for the second coming of Jesus.” Similarly, Thandi described the limited nature of sexuality conversations in her household: “once you are like this [menstruating], you do not sleep with boys”—representing the extent of sexuality education she received. These family contexts typically reflected rigid adherence to heteronormative ideologies combined with religious influences that positioned sexuality as inherently dangerous, shameful, or spiritually problematic, particularly regarding diverse sexual and gender identities.
Participants from various cultural backgrounds described distinct but overlapping patterns of sexuality silencing that reflected their specific cultural contexts. The research revealed how apartheid-era disruptions of traditional family and community structures had severed connections to potentially more open traditional practices while imposing restrictive sexual morality frameworks. Thabo articulated this experience: “it felt as if you were a child, you don’t really have an opinion,” highlighting how traditional hierarchical family structures inhibited open communication about sexuality.
The research revealed how sexuality silencing intersected with other forms of family control and marginalization, with several parents describing how economic stress, family dysfunction, or other challenges within their families of origin had created environments where sexuality education was deprioritized relative to immediate survival concerns. Carly’s experience exemplified this:
I was neglected as a child, and that led to sexual assaults because I was left alone a lot. So, there were more, I guess you can say quote, unquote, “pressing matters,” rather than having conversations about sex.
Multiple parents described experiencing significant conflict between religious teachings and their emerging LGBTQ+ identities, including family rejection or threats of rejection, and internalizing religious teachings that positioned their identities as fundamentally problematic. Pieter reflected on his father’s response to his sexuality: “My dad said, ‘well you can’t practice your sexuality,’ and I’m like ‘Excuse me?.’ He said, ‘it is a sin in the bible so you can’t practice your sexuality.’” Similarly, when Kea disclosed her lesbian sexuality to her parents, she explained: “that wasn’t good. I think religion actually played a huge role in the way that they approach the conversation. I was super scared.”
Furthermore, parents reported receiving insufficient sexuality information during their upbringing, with many describing learning about basic biological functions, puberty, and sexual behavior through accidental discovery, peer education, or media consumption rather than supportive family guidance. Ayanda described her experience with menstruation: “even when I got my menstruation it was very hard for me to say ‘Gogo, this is what I’m experiencing.’ I was only assisted by a woman who was living next door.” Thandi similarly recalled: “I was scared. I was thinking my mom is going to think that I’m sleeping with boys and I’m not . . . I didn’t know that I had to use sanitary pads. So, I’m rolling a tissue.”
Participants had sought information about their emerging sexual orientations or gender identities through secretive means, often living in fear of discovery and familial rejection. Ayanda described her early confusion: “I thought I was crazy. And I didn’t have information about what that thing I was feeling was,” until she gained access to diverse literature at university: “I already felt like I need to know what’s happening to me. I got exposed to reading books . . . other than the bible.”
The parents demonstrated sophisticated understanding of how sexuality silencing had functioned as a mechanism of social control within their families and communities, maintaining hierarchical power structures while marginalizing LGBTQ+ individuals and young people. Maxwell articulated this awareness: “I didn’t feel that I had that space with my mom. I could talk about the fact that I am dating a girl, but I could not talk about what I do with the girl.” This narrative of being unable to openly speak with their parents was echoed by Thabo. Many participants connected their experiences of sexuality silencing to broader systems of oppression, recognizing how their families’ communication practices had reflected and reinforced dominant power structures.
These experiences of silence, confusion, fear, and shame served as powerful motivational forces for parents to deliberately create different environments for their own children. The parents consistently expressed determination that their children would not experience similar information deficits, isolation, and lack of support that had characterized their own sexuality development journeys. As Ayanda explicitly stated: “I didn’t want them to grow up in a way that I grew up, where I was not exposed to information.” Thandi echoed this sentiment: “I feel like there’s a lot that I missed. I don’t want my children to miss it . . . I think it’s just important that it comes from us.”
These experiences of transforming personal marginalization into parenting motivation established the foundation from which four distinct communication strategies emerged.
Theme 1: Integrating Sexuality Into Daily Life
Parents deliberately embedded sexuality discussions within routine family interactions rather than treating them as isolated conversations requiring special preparation. This integration began during early childhood and evolved with children’s development, establishing various sexuality topics as natural and ongoing elements of family life rather than uncomfortable exceptions. Ayanda described her approach:
I don’t make it very formal. I didn’t say, ‘sit down. I’m going to talk to you.’ We talk about things as they come . . . I’ll tell them, “Sex is nice. It’s very nice. But it has consequences, especially if you don’t do it at the right time with the right person.”
This naturalized approach contrasts sharply with traditional “birds and bees” conversations as stated by Thabo and Thandi, who expressed a degree of discomfort with direct terminology, but did not prevent them from having sexuality conversations.
Families demonstrated sophisticated understanding of developmental appropriateness, providing information they believed matched their children’s cognitive capacity while maintaining honesty and accuracy. Pieter emphasized comprehensive inclusion:
I constantly tell them that if you want to talk about everything, anything, whatever it is, come to me . . . And I’ve also made a point of it when I refer to genitalia to call it by [its] biological name . . . If a child gets molested, and they go to court and they call it anything but a “penis” or “vagina,” it can ruin the case.
The integration approach also addressed contextual South African issues. Ayanda’s conversations with her son Siya incorporated discussions about gender-based violence and respect for women, recognizing the intersection of sexuality education with broader social justice concerns. Ayanda has a daughter, who did not participate in the research as she did not meet the inclusion criteria, however, conversations that they had impacted her content approach with her son Siya. Ayanda explained: “My daughter said, ‘Mama, in every space that I go to, we’re always told not to be raped, but then there are no lessons to boys not to rape.’” This prompted Ayanda to develop more comprehensive approaches addressing both protection and responsibility in her conversations with Siya. Ayanda also emphasized comprehensive safety education. Siya explained:
She always said from young to use a condom and “no babies.” The word “protecting,” and abstaining is a good way of safety. Respect as well falls under the consent. You must ask for consent.
This integration of sexuality discussions into daily family life represents a fundamental queering of traditional family communication patterns. By normalizing sexuality conversations within routine interactions, these families actively resist heteronormative assumptions that position sexuality as inherently dangerous, secretive, or inappropriate for family discussion. The developmental sophistication demonstrated by parents, from age-appropriate biological education to complex discussions of consent, gender-based violence, and social responsibility, reveals how LGBTQ+ parents develop comprehensive communication strategies that extend far beyond individual family benefit to constitute forms of social resistance. This naturalized approach to sexuality communication serves dual functions: protecting children through information and empowerment while simultaneously challenging broader social structures that maintain sexuality silencing as a mechanism of control and marginalization.
Theme 2: Utilizing Media as Educational Tools
Parents strategically employed diverse media materials to facilitate conversations and normalize diverse identities while providing external reference points that reduced personal intensity of difficult discussions. Resources included television programming, films, books, and visual aids depicting various aspects of sexuality, gender, and relationships in ways that encouraged discussion and reinforced inclusive values. Pieter explained how he would regularly watch RuPaul’s Drag Race for his own entertainment, but Malik would often watch it with him. Pieter realized this was a platform to discuss gender diversity and expression. He further explained:
I try to expose my kids to all of everything in all of it . . . Families come in different shapes and sizes, dynamics. You can have one parent. You can have one more . . . whether it be a mom or dad, [or] both mommies and both daddies . . . there’s nothing off the table.
Ayanda strategically used visual aids. Her son, Siya, explained the effectiveness of this approach:
There were always diagrams, even around the house. Diagrams for, like, safety. And there’s always condoms around the house. So, each time she comes back with them, she’s like, “there they are. Look at them.” And there’s like always the information . . . it used to be everywhere, and you couldn’t miss it.
Siya further reflected on the normalization this created: “It was cool. I was indifferent. It was normal.”
Thandi acknowledged using some media resources but expressed limitations in her approach: “we’ll see like . . . sometimes we’ll watch something together,” though she did not elaborate extensively on specific media strategies. This suggests varying levels of comfort and familiarity with media-based educational approaches among participants.
However, through using media as an educational tool, a significant limitation emerged regarding South African content. Many participants admitted limited knowledge of LGBTQ+-inclusive South African media, relying heavily on international content. Nevertheless, parents’ creative adaptation of available resources demonstrates sophisticated resistance strategies that transform media consumption from passive reception into active family communication tools. This approach extends beyond individual family education to constitute a form of cultural work that challenges institutional silences while building children’s critical media literacy skills necessary for navigating heteronormative social environments.
Theme 3: Modeling Authenticity Through Daily Living
Parent participants recognized their personal expressions, relationships, and daily behaviors as powerful educational resources, consciously utilizing lived demonstrations to normalize diverse identities and healthy relationships. This approach viewed daily life as continuous teaching opportunities transcending verbal communication. Maxwell’s approach involved modeling gender fluidity through cross-dressing:
I’ve chosen this picture [depicting Maxwell in a woman’s dress and high heels while standing next to his son] because in all my engagements, and basically communicating with my son about sexuality, identity and so forth, I’ve always been expressive . . . to show him how fluid sexuality and gender is . . . you can express yourself however you want and there to really be no limitations.
His son George confirmed the effectiveness of this modeling approach: “It’s just normal . . . I would want people to know how it’s normal.” This analysis reveals how parental gender expression serves as lived curriculum about authentic self-expression and living according to internal rather than external expectations. This provides counter-narratives to rigid gender binaries while demonstrating resilience facing social pressure.
Maxwell further explained how his professional environment, social connections and community involvement inadvertently served as an educational tool for George: “what I always do is I would find the knowledge outside and bring it back home. And we have an open conversation.” He noted that George’s exposure to his work in sexuality and sexual health and regularly being within a range of LGBTQ+ environments, created natural learning opportunities: “He’s still exposed to the space that he grew up in. It’s literally just been in his face, but I think he’s never really been very inquisitive about it because he’s lived in it.” Siya and his mother Ayanda echoed a similar experience as Ayanda works within the LGBTQ+ activism space.
Parents demonstrated healthy relationship dynamics that served as powerful educational tools for their children, modeling healthy partnership characteristics regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. Through their romantic relationships and marriages, participants provided living examples of effective communication, conflict resolution, mutual respect, emotional support, and shared domestic responsibilities that challenged heteronormative assumptions about family roles. Thabo and Maxwell exemplified this approach through their collaborative co-parenting arrangement, including Thabo’s husband (who could not participate in this study). Maxwell explained their unified strategy: “We sat down, and we agreed this is how we’re going to raise [George]. They know I’m a disciplinarian. But at the same time knows I’m very understanding.” This modeling extended beyond parenting to demonstrate how relationships could be negotiated and maintained when there are multiple parenting figures.
Thabo further described how their family structure challenged traditional representations through his chosen image:
The two figures speak of diversity. If I had to use the familiar concept that “families are different.” You get families, whether it’s a mom and a dad. Then you get two dads or to mommies, and I love the fact that you can’t see whether it’s a male or female. It is just figures with hearts on top of it to show that they have love for each other. It’s not gendered.
He emphasized the core message they conveyed: “Love is love. We try to raise him in that way that he sees beyond gender.”
Both Thandi and Ayanda’s approach to modeling authenticity included being open about their journey to self-acceptance and how this impacted their relationships. Ayanda reflected on the contrast between suppressing her identity and living authentically: “The socialisation was to be a woman, get married, have kids. So, I ended up getting married . . . I was juggling between the things I was reading and the life that I was living.” Her eventual decision to live openly provided Siya with an example of prioritizing authenticity over social expectations. Thandi similarly modeled relationship authenticity by leaving a heterosexual relationship that did not align with her identity: “I don’t see myself being someone’s wife, doing all the wifey things in the house.” She described the transformation this brought: “That’s when I came out, and that’s when I started living that life that I’m comfortable in. And that was happier than the life I was living just because it was said that men should be with a woman.”
These examples of relationship modeling challenged traditional gender role expectations and provided children with diverse examples of love, partnership, and family formation. The parents demonstrated that healthy relationships were characterized by mutual respect, open communication, and authenticity rather than adherence to prescribed gender roles or sexual orientations, offering their children broader understanding of what constitutes successful partnerships and family structures.
Theme 4: Creating Environments for Open Inquiry
The integration of daily conversations, strategic media use, and authentic modeling created conditions that enabled the fourth and perhaps most comprehensive strategy: the establishment of family environments that actively welcomed and encouraged open conversations about all aspects of sexuality and identity. Families actively established comprehensive environments where children felt emotionally and physically secure asking questions. Parents positioned themselves as accessible, reliable, and nonjudgmental information sources while establishing family values celebrating curiosity, honesty, and authentic self-expression. The image provided by Pieter of him together with his two sons prompted him to explain:
I believe this sums up the closer we’ve gotten between the three of us. We share everything we are . . . the closeness we’ve got here is the type of closeness that I’ve tried to cultivate in my home . . . I’ve tried to be a safe home, safe place, open place where they can be open to talk about anything.
A particularly significant finding involved parents’ transformative processes of converting personal experiences of marginalization, discrimination, and trauma into powerful motivation for creating affirming family communication practices. Rather than reproducing cycles of silence, shame, and rejection that many had experienced, parents engaged in deliberate therapeutic and political work to convert their painful experiences into sources of strength and wisdom for their parenting practices. Maxwell articulated this transformation:
I wanted to be that go-to person because I had nobody growing up that was teaching me about sex and sexuality and all of that, you know. So, I felt that there was a gap. There was a vacuum and I needed to just close that and be the person that I needed when I was a child.
Parents further described conscious processes of developing family values that directly countered the messages they had received during their upbringing. Ayanda explicitly stated her intention to break these cycles: “I didn’t want them to grow up in a way that I grew up, where I was not exposed to information.” Where they had experienced shame, they sought to create pride; where they had experienced silence, they created openness; where they had experienced rejection, they created unconditional acceptance. Thandi echoed this sentiment: “I feel like, you know, there’s a lot that I missed. I don’t want my children to miss it . . . our children should notice things because I think it’s just important that it comes from us.”
Deliberate efforts communicated openness through verbal and nonverbal signals, with some adopting “no topics are off limits” approaches as stated by Maxwell, Ayanda, and Pieter. Maxwell emphasized his commitment: “there’s technically been no questions . . . he literally does walk up to me at times and initiate conversation.” While not all parents proactively initiated conversations, such as Carly and Kea, and Thandi, or relied on other parents as in the case of Thabo who stated: “I left it to my husband because I get uncomfortable, “ all parents aimed to create safe spaces hoping children would organically gravitate toward open communication.
Several parents explicitly framed their parenting practices as forms of generational healing, recognizing that their communication innovations could interrupt patterns of harm that had been transmitted through multiple generations. Thabo reflected on this transformation: “I thought maybe I need to leave the old parenting style and try to understand [George] more . . . I need to have a loving relationship with him. “Many parents connected their personal healing work to broader social justice commitments, recognizing their family practices as forms of resistance to oppressive systems while contributing to social change that could benefit other marginalized families.
Creating supportive environments required attention to both physical and emotional safety considerations, including establishing private conversation spaces, ensuring children would not be overheard during sensitive discussions, and creating predictable times for such conversations. Parents emphasized commitment to providing honest, age-appropriate responses even when topics were uncomfortable or outside their immediate knowledge base. Pieter demonstrated this commitment: “if you don’t ask me, I’m going to tell you anyway . . . I don’t want them for one moment to feel there’s nothing we can’t talk about.” Adolescent participants confirmed the effectiveness of these approaches, reporting high comfort levels when discussing sexuality topics with parents and identifying parents as primary trusted information sources. Siya articulated his comfort: “My mother [Ayanda] is the primary one. I’m pretty comfortable with my mom . . . I always ask her questions.” Malik similarly expressed trust in his father’s accessibility: “I was like, ‘I do not trust you, Google. Let me go ask my dad [Pieter].’”
However, the research also revealed disconnects between parental intentions and children’s experiences, highlighting the ongoing complexity of family communication even within affirming households. This finding challenges the central premise that LGBTQ+ parents universally succeed in creating open communication environments. Vanessa (daughter of Thandi), despite being raised in an LGBTQ+ household, expressed hesitation about discussing her pansexual identity with her parents:
I would like them to ask more. Like ask me more questions and I will answer. That will be much better than saying it out loud . . . I don’t like speaking about my sexual orientation. But I guess that’s something I need to do. Like find my voice to speak more about it.
This disconnect reveals critical complexities within LGBTQ+ family communication. Vanessa’s experience demonstrates that parental acceptance strategies do not automatically translate into children’s disclosure comfort, suggesting that internalized societal stigma affects even children in affirming households. Her preference for being asked rather than volunteering information indicates that effective communication requires ongoing negotiation about styles and preferences rather than uniform approaches. In addition, her hesitation despite Thandi’s authenticity modeling suggests that children’s comfort with disclosure is influenced by factors beyond parental strategies, including peer relationships, school environments, and individual temperament. These contradictions reveal the limits of even innovative parental communication strategies, showing how cultural expectations and social stigma continue to shape children’s communication comfort within affirming family contexts.
This finding highlight that creating environments for open inquiry requires ongoing negotiation between family openness and social navigation, even within the most affirming households. The complexity demonstrated by families like Vanessa and Thandi’s illustrates that effective communication environments must account for individual developmental processes and identity exploration timelines, rather than assuming uniform comfort with disclosure. George’s reflection on normality versus difference reveals how children from LGBTQ+ families develop sophisticated skills for navigating multiple social contexts while maintaining connection to their family’s values. These examples underscore the limitations of parental strategies, demonstrating that effective family communication involves supporting children in developing autonomous voices for engaging in sexuality discussions within their own developmental timelines.
Discussion
The findings reveal deliberate efforts by LGBTQ+ parents to disrupt intergenerational silence about sexuality through communication approaches that simultaneously function as relationship-building strategies and resistance to heteronormative regulation. Guided by the integrated theoretical framework of queering family communication theory, this study demonstrates how LGBTQ+ families actively challenge dominant narratives while creating affirming spaces for their children’s development. Four key communication strategies emerged: (a) integrating sexuality discussions into daily life, (b) strategically utilizing media resources, (c) embodying authenticity through lived practices, and (d) creating environments that welcome open inquiry. These practices represent deliberate acts of resistance that extend beyond individual family improvement to constitute forms of political action challenging dominant social structures.
These communication innovations directly address the research focus by demonstrating how LGBTQ+ parents break cycles of silence, shame, and misinformation that characterized their own upbringings. Rather than reproducing patterns of sexuality silencing, parents engaged in conscious processes of critical reflection followed by intentional development of alternative approaches that simultaneously protect their children while challenging broader cultural scripts about sexuality and family life.
While celebrating these families’ sophisticated communication strategies, it is crucial to acknowledge that these practices largely emerge from positions of relative privilege. The participating families, stemming from urban, middle-class backgrounds with access to resources and supportive networks, occupy social locations that enable such communication innovations. This finding aligns with research by Dorri et al. (2023), which highlights how family communication strategies are constrained by structural factors and resource availability. This raises important questions about the universalizability of these approaches and the structural barriers facing families with fewer resources, rural locations, or greater exposure to discrimination. The transformation of marginalization into motivation, while demonstrating remarkable resilience, also risks romanticizing trauma as necessary for positive parenting outcomes. This narrative potentially obscures the reality that supportive communication should be available to all families regardless of parents’ experiences of marginalization.
Furthermore, consistent with findings from Shattuck et al. (2022) regarding institutional resistance, these parents’ resistance strategies operate within existing power structures rather than fundamentally challenging them. While their practices contest heteronormative assumptions within family boundaries, they simultaneously reproduce certain middle-class norms around intensive parenting, educational achievement, and cultural capital acquisition, a pattern that echoes observations by Goldberg (2022) regarding LGBTQ+ parent families and social context.
Consistent with queer theory’s emphasis on challenging normative categories (Butler, 1990), participating parents actively disrupted traditional approaches to sexuality communication through their integration of sexuality discussions into daily life. Rather than adhering to formalized, one-time conversations, these parents developed ongoing and integrated approaches that normalized sexuality discussions within daily routines. This represents a fundamental queering of family communication patterns by transforming sexuality from a taboo subject requiring special handling into a natural component of family interaction. The strategic use of media resources further demonstrates resistance to heteronormative educational frameworks, as parents incorporated LGBTQ+-inclusive content into family viewing and discussion to counter the systematic exclusion of diverse identities from formal educational settings (Francis, 2017). However, the reliance on international media highlights ongoing challenges in the South African context, where “un-African” narratives continue to marginalize LGBTQ+ experiences (Matebeni et al., 2018).
The embodiment of authenticity through daily living emerged as a powerful communication strategy that extends beyond verbal instruction to encompass lived experiences of diverse identities and relationships. This approach aligns with Bandura’s (1977) social learning theory, highlighting how children learn through observation and modeling. However, the findings reveal how modeling occurs within heteronormative contexts that may punish certain forms of visibility, requiring parents to engage in complex calculations about safety, authenticity, and children’s well-being. Parents consciously utilized their personal expressions, relationships, and daily behaviors as educational resources, and created ongoing opportunities for children to observe diverse gender expressions, healthy same-sex relationships, and resilient responses to discrimination. This modeling approach challenges traditional educational frameworks by demonstrating how lived experiences can serve as powerful curricula for understanding diverse identities and relationships.
The creation of environments for open inquiry represents a sophisticated communication strategy that extends family communication theory’s understanding of conversation orientation (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002). Most participating families exhibited characteristics of consensual family types, combining high conversation orientation with maintained parental authority (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002). However, this balance required constant negotiation given the families’ positioning within heteronormative social contexts. The findings reveal that traditional family communication typologies require expansion to accommodate the complex dynamics of LGBTQ+ families, as these families must simultaneously foster open communication about sexuality while protecting children from potential discrimination. This creates unique communication challenges not adequately addressed in existing frameworks.
A significant finding involves parents’ processes of transforming personal experiences of marginalization into powerful motivation for creating affirming family communication practices. Rather than reproducing cycles of silence and shame, parents engaged in deliberate work to convert painful experiences into sources of strength for their parenting practices. This transformation aligns with posttraumatic growth theory (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2009) while extending it to family communication contexts and demonstrates how marginalized individuals reframe negative experiences into constructive narratives (Breshears & Braithwaite, 2014). However, this research extends these theories by revealing how transformation occurs within constrained contexts that limit possibilities for resistance, as LGBTQ+ parents actively constructed new communication patterns that affirmed diverse identities while simultaneously navigating systems that continue to marginalize their families.
These findings extend queer theory by demonstrating how family communication practices become sites of both identity performance and constraint. While families resist heteronormative assumptions, they also navigate “homonormative” expectations within LGBTQ+ communities that may pressure them toward particular forms of openness or political engagement (McCann & Monaghan, 2019). This reveals the need for more nuanced theoretical frameworks that account for multiple forms of normativity operating simultaneously. The research also challenges family communication theory’s assumptions about consensual communication as universally positive (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002). For marginalized families, complete openness may not always be safe or strategic, therefore requiring a reconceptualization of theoretical frameworks that account for communication as situated within broader systems of surveillance and regulation (Mehrotra et al., 2023).
Research on family acceptance demonstrates that supportive family relationships serve as crucial protective factors for LGBTQ+ youth, associated with improved mental health, reduced substance use, and lower suicide risk (Newcomb et al., 2019; Ryan et al., 2010). However, the current findings reveal how creating accepting environments requires ongoing resistance to multiple forms of oppression rather than simply implementing supportive communication techniques. The four communication strategies identified demonstrate how families actively construct protective frameworks while navigating potentially hostile social contexts, extending beyond individual communication skills to encompass broader strategies of cultural navigation and identity negotiation.
While celebrating these families’ innovations, critical analysis must acknowledge limitations of individual-level resistance strategies. Communication practices alone cannot address structural discrimination in schools, health care systems, and legal frameworks that shape these families’ experiences. The emphasis on family-level solutions risks deflecting attention from necessary systemic changes while placing responsibility on marginalized families to protect themselves through better communication. In addition, the focus on successful communication innovations may inadvertently marginalize LGBTQ+ families struggling with communication challenges, mental health issues, or resource limitations that prevent implementation of such strategies. Professional practice must develop approaches that support families across the spectrum of communication competencies rather than privileging those who have successfully developed sophisticated strategies, while simultaneously advocating for systemic changes that address the structural barriers constraining family communication possibilities.
Implications for Practice
These findings demonstrate how LGBTQ+ families actively resist heteronormative assumptions through sophisticated communication innovations that transform intergenerational sexuality conversation silence into affirming dialogue. These discoveries challenge health professional practice to move beyond deficit-based approaches toward recognizing and building upon the expertise that diverse families develop through necessity and innovation.
The four communication strategies identified represent sophisticated practices developed by families navigating unique challenges within South African contexts of cultural diversity and religious conservatism. Rather than viewing LGBTQ+ families through pathologizing lenses, practitioners must recognize these innovations as evidence-based approaches that can inform broader family practice. This requires assessment processes that identify existing family strengths while exploring how professional support can enhance rather than replace family-developed strategies. Helping professionals should develop skills in recognizing resistance strategies as family strengths, understanding how families adapt to hostile environments while maintaining resilience, and supporting parents in processing their own experiences of marginalization without reproducing therapeutic approaches that individualize structural problems.
The research reveals how families develop sophisticated protective strategies precisely because institutional support remains inadequate. Participants’ reliance on international media highlights ongoing marginalization within South African cultural contexts, where LGBTQ+ identities continue to be characterized as “un-African” despite constitutional protections.
Effective practice approaches must recognize the intersectional nature of LGBTQ+ family experiences, understanding how race, class, culture, and geographic location create different challenges and opportunities for communication innovation. The finding that participants came from urban, middle-class backgrounds highlights the need for practice approaches that address resource disparities and structural barriers facing families in different social locations.
Practitioners must simultaneously support individual families while advocating for systemic changes addressing the conditions that require such intensive family-level resistance, including comprehensive anti-discrimination policies in educational institutions and development of culturally relevant LGBTQ+ resources within South African contexts.
Conclusion
This study demonstrates how LGBTQ+ families in South Africa develop sophisticated communication strategies that simultaneously function as family practices and forms of political resistance to heteronormative regulation. Through integrating sexuality discussions into daily life, strategically utilizing media resources, modeling authenticity, and creating environments for open inquiry, these families actively disrupt intergenerational cycles of silence while fostering their children’s healthy development.
The application of queering family communication theory reveals how these practices extend beyond individual family improvement to constitute deliberate challenges to dominant assumptions about sexuality, gender, and family life. Most significantly, the research demonstrates how personal experiences of marginalization become catalysts for generational healing and social transformation, with parents consciously converting their own experiences of silence and shame into motivation for creating affirming environments.
However, these innovations emerge primarily from positions of relative privilege and cannot address structural discrimination alone. The urban, middle-class positioning of participating families highlights significant limitations in the generalizability of these strategies. Families facing poverty, rural isolation, or extreme religious conservatism may lack the resources, social networks, and safety required to implement such approaches. Furthermore, the reliance on individual family-level solutions risks obscuring the need for systemic changes in educational institutions, health care systems, and legal frameworks that continue to marginalize LGBTQ+ families. The critique of privilege must be expanded to acknowledge how systemic barriers, including economic inequality, geographic isolation, and institutional discrimination, prevent lower-resource families from accessing or replicating these communication strategies, regardless of their motivation or commitment to affirming practices.
While celebrating these families’ resistance strategies, future research must examine how families with fewer resources navigate similar challenges and advocate for systemic changes that support all LGBTQ+ families regardless of their social positioning. For professional practice, these findings demand fundamental shifts from deficit-based to expertise-honoring approaches that recognize LGBTQ+ families as sites of innovation and knowledge production. Professional practice must build upon family-developed strategies while advocating for structural changes that address the broader conditions requiring such intensive resistance work.
Footnotes
Disposition editor: Cristina Mogro-Wilson
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
