The university have a fundamental responsibility to promote, protect, and uphold the rights of LGBTIQA+ people (lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, intersex, queer, and other gender identities and sexual orientations) at the educational, social, welfare, and health levels but can be also actors that reproduce the social and cultural prejudices and stigmas latent in society.

The key is that universities not only train future professionals in various disciplines, but also serve as spaces where human rights, inclusion and equal opportunities for LGBTIQA+ people must be put into practice and gender equality must be promoted (1, 2). In this regard, it is essential for universities to adopt clear policies that protect LGBTIQA+ individuals from any form of discrimination, whether based on sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression. The university— a crucible of knowledge, innovation, and critical thinking—stands as a fundamental institution in shaping just and equitable societies (3). Universities must be places where LGBTIQA+ individuals can live and express themselves without fear of stigma, where they can freely develop their diverse expressions, identities, and sexual orientations—spaces of well-being (4).

As Paredes Fuentes (5) notes, we cannot forget that the university is not merely a space where knowledge is transmitted; it is a living and dynamic institution with the power and responsibility to drive social change in the area of gender equality and LGBTIQA+ rights. Through teaching committed to LGBTIQA+ rights, research grounded in a gender perspective, and active university outreach, the university becomes a key pillar in building more just, equitable, and inclusive societies that fully guarantee the well-being of non-cisheteronormative students (6). The university’s commitment to gender equality and sex-gender diversity must be transversal, permeating its internal structure and functioning, and ensuring the comprehensive well-being and health of LGBTIQA+ individuals.

In light of the above, higher education must promote diversity and a culture of respect and equality for LGBTIQA+ people, fostering spaces for personal development and well-being within the university environment and helping eliminate all forms of LGBTIQA+ phobia. The Comisión Europea (7) promotes the idea that higher education must play its role in addressing social and democratic challenges, which means ensuring that the university is inclusive so that learning communities are civically aware and connected to their broader communities.

Spain’s Organic Law 2/2023 (8) on the University System establishes the obligation of universities to promote equality and non-discrimination— including on the grounds of sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression— and to adopt specific measures to safeguard the rights of LGTBIQ+ people.

However, the reality of LGBTIQA+ students in university environments still presents significant shortcomings, as they continue to experience LGBTIQA+ phobia, which directly affects their health and well-being. This perspective departs from the premise that higher education is not neutral; rather, it systematically reproduces dominant categories of gender, sexuality, and embodiment. Authors such as Fernández Hawrylak et al. (40) document that 28% of LGBTIQA+ students in Spain report feeling unsafe in mixed classrooms. Dueñas et al. (9) research on the university experiences of the LGBTIQA+ community has shown that non-cisheteronormative students are more likely to experience discrimination, harassment, and exclusion, which significantly affects both their academic performance and psychosocial well-being, with direct consequences for their health.

Along these lines, authors such as Meyer (10) argue that LGBTIQA+ people experience minority stress derived from social stigmatization, which is exacerbated in contexts where discriminatory discourses or practices exist, such as universities. While universities may promote inclusion at a declarative level, they can become hostile environments when university communities reproduce stereotypes or erase non-cisheteronormative identities, negatively affecting students’ well-being. Research by Woodford and Kulick (11) found that LGBTIQA+ students report significantly higher levels of anxiety and isolation when they perceive negative attitudes or offensive language in the university classroom. Similarly, Rankin et al. (41), in one of the most comprehensive studies on university climate, conclude that more than 20% of LGBTIQA+ students have experienced harassment or discrimination at their universities, revealing a systemic issue.

In addition to these direct aggression, we can also find other kind of violence when, through institutional practices, we invisibilize or marginalize dissident sex-gender identities. Talburt (12) argues that university policies often focus on tolerance rather than on profound transformation of institutional culture, resulting in superficial inclusion. In this sense, although universities can be influential institutions in promoting gender diversity and inclusion, not only in the higher education context, but also in society at large, they remain gendered and male-dominated with often wide disparities at regional and national levels (13, 14).

Given this situation, the project in which this study is embedded aims to empower the higher education community to fight gender bias and respect sexual orientation, providing, firstly, specialized information on gender discrimination, violence and sexual harassment within participating institutions. So, fight against LGBTIQA+ phobia in universities, as a type of gender-based violence, is not only a commitment to human rights, but an essential condition for building a democratic and plural academic community in which LGBTIQA+ individuals can find a safe and supportive environment across all domains (15). Through inclusive policies, education and awareness-raising, the creation of safe spaces, and active support for the community, the university can be a key actor in building a more just, equitable, and sex-gender diverse society. This situation underscores the urgent need for the G-FORCE project, which seeks to promote gender equality and respect for sexual orientation in universities by raising awareness and using innovative digital tools to strengthen the capacity of faculty and students in matters of gender equality and sex-gender diversity, ultimately improving the inclusion and well-being of LGBTIQA+ students.

This study was conducted within the framework of the international higher education collaboration project ERASMUS+ titled GFORCE: EnForcing Gender Equality and Contributing to Sexual Orientation Respect in Higher Education Institutions Alliance (KA220-HED-0449BDD3). One of its work packages focuses on examining the status of partner universities regarding the promotion of gender equality and sex-gender diversity. To achieve this objective, a qualitative research design grounded in the interpretive paradigm was developed (16), based on the analysis of the perspectives and meanings expressed by key informants connected to the phenomenon under study (17).

To gain a deeper understanding of this reality, two focus groups were conducted. The first represented the internal university community—faculty, administrative and research staff, and students—while the second brought together actors representing the institution’s relationship with society as members of social organizations, public institutions, and research centres. Focus groups constitute a specific form of group interview in which discussion revolves around a defined topic and is guided by a facilitator (18). The purpose of the focus groups was to gather information on participants’ ideas, thoughts, attitudes, and perceptions regarding the university as an agent promoting gender equality and sex-gender diversity. In this sense, the data emerged from the interactions generated within the shared discussion space (19).

The results of this process were condensed into four dimensions (see Figure 1): (1) knowledge and awareness of gender equality and diversity (university engagement, training and innovation, and transversal curricular content); (2) institutional practices and university policies (mechanisms to address discrimination and LGBTIQA+ phobia, institutional resources and support, and internal and external coordination); and (3) university culture (normalized attitudes of sexism and LGBTIQA+ phobia and resistance to challenging such normalization).

The results of this study align with observations by authors such as Gairín Sallán et al. (42) regarding educational organizations: some institutions “learn” more than others, demonstrating the capacity to modify their structures, processes, and relationships, while others remain more instrumental than emancipatory. The latter may implement programs and protocols on sex-gender diversity and gender equality, yet fail to achieve real or transformative change. Lombardo and Maier (24) note that although universities adopt equality discourses, a significant gap persists between policy design and actual implementation, generating perceptions of inefficacy or distrust. This aligns with González et al. (25), who highlight the tension between formal organizational structures and organizational culture, whose complex interaction reproduces and perpetuates discriminatory practices.

Universities, as socializing institutions, are not neutral; they reproduce cultural frameworks that legitimize certain ways of being while marginalizing others. Participants perceive training initiatives on gender and sex-gender diversity as isolated, poorly integrated, and minimally innovative. Bardisa (26) emphasizes the gap between the formal organization—documented in regulations, policies, and plans—and the real organization, which manifests in everyday practices. When educational institutions fail to articulate a cohesive educational project, training initiatives are relegated to individual efforts or isolated interventions, failing to transform organizational culture as a whole. González et al. (25) further note that relationships among faculty in universities tend toward “cellularism,” where each professor conducts educational activities in isolation, with limited awareness of others’ work and without effective organizational controls.

Another explanation for the gap between formal structures and university culture, according to Meyer and Rowan (27), is that educational institutions function as loosely coupled systems, with internal elements maintaining relative autonomy. González et al. (25) also argue that bureaucratic organizational cultures prioritize process management over meaningful learning, focusing on methodological innovation rather than reviewing structures, communication channels, participation mechanisms, power relations, and other elements that shape the educational culture. Consequently, despite policies, regulations, and units dedicated to gender equality and sex-gender diversity, universities often fail to translate these formal commitments into everyday practices, generating perceptions that initiatives are symbolic rather than transformative.

The predominance of bureaucratic, process-oriented cultures limits universities’ capacity to foster inclusive and equitable environments. Traditional cultural frameworks continue to legitimize cisheteronormativity while marginalizing dissenting sexualities. Faculty training and innovation programs, although valuable, are insufficient if they do not challenge entrenched practices, professional habits, and institutional logics that sustain inequalities. Limited spaces for dialogue, coordination, and collective participation further hinder transversal integration of gender equality and sex-gender diversity. Challenges also persist in incorporating these perspectives into curricula, as many disciplines still treat them as supplementary or irrelevant, reproducing partial views of knowledge (28). University education that does not prioritize these subjects contributes to perpetuating inequalities among future professionals.

In addition, the study’s findings align with broader research on the experiences of LGBTIQA+ individuals in academia. Larsen et al. (29) highlight in their web project that working conditions, self-censorship, and concerns about academic freedom significantly affect LGBTQIA+ faculty and staff, limiting their ability to engage fully in institutional life. Gregory and Matthews (30) emphasize that social policies and institutional climates play a critical role in shaping opportunities for queer individuals to “come out” and participate openly, demonstrating that organizational culture and policy are deeply intertwined with lived experiences. Musubika (28) further stresses that perceptions of safety are central to student engagement in diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, reinforcing the need for comprehensive institutional strategies rather than isolated interventions.

The concept of the queer university offers a critical horizon for addressing these challenges. As Ahmed (31) proposes, the contemporary university—traditionally seen as a space for knowledge production and legitimization—must rethink itself through epistemological frameworks that question cisheteronormative structures. The queer university is not limited to dissident sexual identities; it represents a pedagogical project that interrogates cisheteronormativity, challenges educational systems, and fosters alternative ways of producing and inhabiting knowledge (32). It functions as a critical and utopian horizon, destabilizing disciplinary, bureaucratic, and heteronormative logics that have historically dominated academia (33).

A queer university envisions horizontal, affective, and collaborative academic communities that prioritize well-being. Education becomes a practice of freedom, linked to emancipation, questioning, and ongoing dialogue, grounded in care (34). Faculty-student relationships are transformed to emphasize reciprocity, reflexivity, and the integration of lived experience (35). This approach challenges traditional dichotomies between theory and practice, academic and community knowledge, and thought and body (36). Structural transformations are required, including democratization of governance, depatriarchalization and deracialization of curricula, non-precarious working conditions, horizontal and embodied pedagogical practices, and openness to experimental thought (43).

Furthermore, queer theoretical frameworks provide practical guidance for teaching and institutional practices. Velinov and Hamza-Orlinska (37) show that incorporating queer perspectives into global diversity, equity, and inclusion education enhances reflexivity and challenges normative assumptions, encouraging more inclusive pedagogical and organizational practices. The queer university also emphasizes safe and affirming spaces for all students, where bodies are not subjected to control or binary classification, fostering alternative forms of existence, expression, and learning (38). It is not a finished project but an ongoing, collective practice that rearticulates critique as imagination, discomfort as political resource, and vulnerability as the basis for inclusive academic communities (39).

Integrating the queer university perspective with the study’s findings highlights the need for universities to move beyond symbolic compliance toward structural, cultural, and pedagogical transformation. Only through such comprehensive approaches can gender equality and sex-gender diversity become central to the identity and functioning of higher education institutions, improving experiences for students, faculty, and staff alike.

Achieving genuine inclusion in universities requires more than implementing policies, programs, or isolated initiatives; it demands structural, cultural, and pedagogical transformation. The study reveals a persistent gap between formal commitments to gender equality and sex-gender diversity and the realities of everyday university life. Bureaucratic and process-oriented cultures, fragmented implementation, and limited spaces for dialogue hinder the integration of inclusive practices, reinforcing cisheteronormative norms and marginalizing dissenting sexualities.

The findings suggest that moving beyond symbolic compliance necessitates embedding inclusion into the very identity and functioning of higher education institutions. This involves revising decision-making processes, power dynamics, work organization, and communication channels, as well as promoting collective participation and collaborative pedagogical practices. Curricula must prioritize gender and sex-gender diversity across disciplines, and universities must create safe physical and symbolic spaces, including gender-neutral facilities and inclusive cultural and leadership opportunities for LGBTIQA+ students.

In line with the concept of the queer university, genuine transformation requires imagining higher education as a space that critically interrogates cisheteronormative structures, fosters horizontal and affective communities, and integrates care, reciprocity, and reflexivity into academic life. This approach emphasizes that inclusion is not a fixed outcome but an ongoing, collective practice of rethinking institutional logics, knowledge production, and social relations within the university. Ultimately, fostering inclusive universities depends on sustained institutional commitment, adequate resources, faculty and staff training, and deep cultural change. Only by embracing these comprehensive strategies can higher education institutions move from declarative statements of equality to meaningful, everyday practices that advance justice, equity, and well-being for all members of the academic community.