At Aidshilfe Hamburg, the Youthwork team is responsible for providing sex education to young people. Our main focus is on running three- to four-hour school workshops on sexual health and queer education, but we also act as a partner at fairs, festivals and parties, running information stands and providing low-threshold access to free safer sex products. The team consists of Federal Volunteers, interns, dual-study students, volunteers and one full-time staff member who leads the team. I myself joined the department as a Federal Volunteer in 2024 and have now been working here for about a year and a half as a dual-study student in a sort of assistant role to the department head. In this role, I carry out my own projects, including the interview project for our queer educational work, which is described in more detail below.
As a team, we believe it is very important to provide young people with easy access to diverse sex education. Perhaps this is because many of us share the experience of a school life and youth which, looking back, would have benefited from more sex education, more role models and greater visibility of queer issues. From our own experience, we know how difficult it can be to understand yourself when the words aren’t there. To accept yourself when your own identity isn’t talked about, or isn’t discussed as if it were something completely „normal“ and healthy – something that can bring joy to life.
Our school workshops on sexual health do not focus exclusively on queer perspectives, but do include them in order to convey a nuanced picture of sexuality and challenge one-dimensional sexual scripts. Explaining the biological realities behind sexual practices often labelled as „queer“ – through questions such as „what is the prostate?“ – can help to dispel such labels and are intended to foster an open understanding of sexuality, one in which there is not just one ‘correct’ form of sex – and from which, ultimately, all participants benefit, regardless of their gender identity and sexual or romantic orientation.
In reality, it is not always possible to live up to these high standards in our workshops in quite the way we would ideally like. Particularly in the „Plietsch“ workshop, which explicitly focuses on queer education, we often find ourselves engaged in fundamental discussions that ultimately touch upon the very democratic understanding of how we live together.
Challenging workshops: when your world view leaves little room for other perspectives
We don’t have much new to tell some classes: the pupils already have a great deal of knowledge of their own and have no trouble linking the concept of „solidarity“ with that of „being an ally“. Looking out for one another and showing moral courage are part of everyday life, or are at least positive concepts with which they want to identify. Diverse opinions and ways of life may not inspire activism in everyone here, but they often spark curiosity or a fundamental acceptance.
On the other hand, there are classes where we encounter a difficult underlying atmosphere. Attitudes there range from „That’s got nothing to do with me, so I don’t care about these people (and their experiences of exclusion)“ to openly queer-hostile statements. Empathy and solidarity with queer people are often rejected by a chorus of voices. The importance of solidarity with people who are „different“ from oneself needs to be explained, and even then it doesn’t always seem to get through.
„Why can’t everyone just be normal?“ asked one pupil, exasperated, at the end of a workshop – and by „normal“ she meant „heterosexual“. That doesn’t exactly give you the impression that you’ve achieved much.
From pessimism to serenity: don’t let anything hold you back
I still remember clearly how, after a series of challenging workshops, we sat together at a loss; frustrated, shaken and increasingly pessimistic about the success of our work. During that time, I had to rethink and redefine a great deal so as not to write off the workshops and our work as a failed project. What does „success“ mean to us, and what constitutes a „successful workshop“? Should a sense of success always arise when we receive as much approval as possible, or isn’t it actually much more successful when we are given the opportunity to
To be able to talk to kids who, whilst holding strong views about „those queer people“, have probably never actually met a self-assured, openly queer person?
Ultimately, our job isn’t to dissuade people from their views. Young people in particular often have very strong opinions, but I put this down to the stage of development they’re at and their lack of experience. When I was a teenager, I also thought I understood the world; indeed, looking back, I’d even say I was a very conservative teenager. This perspective helps me to no longer perceive hostility and rejection in the workshops as such a serious issue. These experiences should not shake my „faith in young people“. On the contrary, since my personal shift in perspective, I have been asking myself this question with even greater urgency: what are suitable, better methods for fostering empathy and filling terms and labels with human stories? What methods can we use to convey a message to the pupils without providing a platform for the reproduction of statements fresh off the press from the Manosphere and the like?
How can I sow a single seed – „queer people are people just like you and me“ – rather than an entire rainforest at once, in the hope that this thought will linger somewhere in the back of people’s minds and, every now and then, cast doubt on their rigid worldview, like a tiny, unsettling spark?
New approaches: moving away from desk-based work towards queer stories.
When I joined the workshop team, we were mainly using two methods. Firstly, we used „Queer Memory“, which explains terms relating to gender identity, sexual and romantic orientation, and relationship models, and explores concepts such as „heteronormativity“ and „being an ally“. This was followed by group work involving fictional biographies. The school groups were asked to create a poster addressing questions such as „What difficulties does XY face?“ and ‘What fears or worries might XY have?’.
I found myself increasingly dissatisfied with the way the biography was being written. It reduced being queer too much to the role of a victim. It focused on difficulties, problems and injustices, and I wondered what sort of impression young queer people were getting of „queer life“. In our group, at any rate, it suggested a life full of difficulties and fears. I didn’t like that, as I knew from my own experience just how much joy, self-love and a sense of community can be associated with a queer identity. So the biographical exercise was replaced by the Ally Method. We’d found the Ally Method on the topic of solidarity in the Queere Bildung methods pool. We adapted it into a group activity in which the pupils considered why it’s important to be an ally and what that might look like in practice. The answers are compiled on the ‘Ally’ poster, which they take back to their classroom at the end.
What both methods – the Biography Method and the Ally Method – had in common was that the pupils were kept occupied in groups with worksheets. In some classes, this „school-like“ approach worked, but in many it did not. A modern method was needed that combined the empathy-based approach of the biography method with the solidarity-based approach of the ally method, whilst still managing to hold the pupils’ attention.
The interview method
The idea for the interview series was born. I envisaged interviews in which a wide variety of queer people would talk about their experiences, come across as approachable, and, above all, give queer pupils the courage to face the future. I drafted the project description and faced the big question: which stories should feature on our screen? As I mostly work on my projects alone, I had to set myself a limit from the outset: a maximum of ten interviews and a maximum of five minutes per interview in the final cut. It was also important to me to introduce pupils to stories that reflect queer realities in all their facets and complexities, whilst also offering a hopeful, optimistic outlook. I selected the interviewees from my own circle of acquaintances or approached small organisations to collaborate.
As of July 2026, I have seven articles featuring people from the trans, inter, queer Muslim, Christian-queer, Vietnamese, Colombian, bisexual, gay, genderqueer and non-binary communities, as well as one article by a queer person who experiences disability in society. I am currently keeping two further articles open, or rather, I am still looking for interviewees to provide an aromantic/asexual perspective and a queer BPoC perspective. An interview with two older lesbian women is in the pipeline. The articles are based on semi-structured interviews. The participants were given a sheet with guiding questions, from which they could choose questions themselves. The interviews were largely recorded freely by the interviewees, and then organised by me during the final edit into a consistent structure: introduction, what are the challenges of being queer, what are some positive experiences
I’ve done this; a wish for society / for the pupils / for the future.
Insights into queer perspectives: L. and S.
This section aims to provide a brief insight into the perspectives of L. and S., both of whom were interviewed. L. is a genderqueer, bisexual person who experiences disability in society. S. is a gay vicar. Both provide examples of a theme that runs through many of the interviews: they combine identities that society often portrays as incompatible, or does not portray at all, and which are therefore not even presented as possibilities. As L. explains: „I did know people who were gay … but I never asked myself the question, ‘Hmm, maybe I’m attracted to the same sex too.’”.
“It wasn’t until I saw people on social media that I realised, hmm, I actually find that quite lovely, and that’s when I realised I’m bi.„ She continues: “I certainly very rarely see representation of people who have a disability and are also, for example, gay or trans. It feels like there are only two options: either someone has a disability or they’re part of the LGBTQ community. And I very rarely see someone who is both.„ S. also says: “I’m quite open about it, but it always leaves people looking puzzled. I do notice there’s a certain scepticism – how can you work for the Church and be queer, be gay… Can you even be openly queer at all?”
It is precisely at these points of intersection, however, that human resilience and the strength to overcome boundaries are revealed – to challenge social assumptions in order to find one’s own new paths and live one’s own truth. Contradictions become a unifying element, and perhaps it is precisely this synthesis that makes the interviews so multi-layered and thought-provoking. Vikar S. says: „I believe that where we are all truly alike as human beings is in our desire for a sense of belonging, for community, and for a safe environment.“
In an ideal world, the Church can offer this – despite serious failings in the past: „I believe the Church can, at least to some extent, fill a gap … to provide a safe haven for people. And to show them that they are loved, that they matter, that they have a place and do not have to disappear into invisibility.“ L. points out that „diversity doesn’t just mean sexuality and gender identity“ – people with disabilities are part of it too. For example, July is Disability Pride Month – this could do with a bit more visibility, both in society at large and within other queer communities.
Integration into a methodological framework
The concept for integrating the interviews into a „proper“ methodology was developed by the team. By the end of the method, the pupils should have understood that these are not just terms; there are real, complex people behind them who are more than a label, more than a stereotype – they are multidimensional people just like myself, and their struggle for a non-violent, dignified existence concerns me too. Based on this, four key questions were formulated for the subsequent discussion session:
1.) Have you ever felt „different“?
„Feeling different“ can affect anyone, and this reflection on one’s own life – the question „In what context have I felt this way?“ – is intended to create the inner space needed to develop, through one’s own personal and biographical context, an understanding of and empathy for the feeling of „being different“ experienced by queer people.
2.) What did you find interesting in the interviews?
This is deliberately neutral wording, designed to give pupils the opportunity to ask themselves: did that trigger something in me? What might it trigger in me? Joy, unease, confusion – and what might that say about me? These questions do not need to be discussed in front of the whole group. However, they are intended to provide food for thought regarding the assumptions one might hold about the feelings associated with queer issues and queer people. Small moments of unease can help to gradually break down internalised ideologies.
3.) Imagine your best friend is being excluded. How can you support them? The group is then asked: Would you do the same for someone else? How can we generally stand up for one another? The ‘Ally’ poster is then brought out again, so that ideas can be jotted down on it.
4.) Why is it important to be an ally? This question now explicitly brings us back to the concept of „being an ally“. Unlike with the ‘Ally Method’, however, the pupils can work with the perspectives they have experienced and build on what they have learnt from the interviews
has. This question will probably be the clearest indicator of the extent to which we have been able to foster empathy and solidarity in the pupils through this method.
Conclusion: Reflection and experimentation
The seven interviews are moving, relatable and very human. I’m really looking forward to seeing how the pupils react to them, and I’d like to take this opportunity to thank
To all the interviewees for their wonderful contributions. Nevertheless, I must also critically examine my own approach – for example, how do I deal with my position, in which I decide whose story is (or isn’t) told? A selection has to be made, but there is always something critical about the process. Ultimately, however, I would also like to pay tribute to my own work and that of the whole
Teams, for having developed a new and exciting approach to our queer education.
Now it’s time to give it a go and see if it stands the test of reality!
