LGBTIQA+ students’ transformative ‘religious freedom’ definitions

ABSTRACT
 Definitions of ‘religious freedom’ around schools’ treatment of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, queer and asexual (LGBTIQA+) students have been regularly debated internationally, with little input from LGBTIQA+ students. Transformative theories of religious freedom around sex, gender and sexuality in education suggest religious freedom cannot counter equality. This study uses data from the 2022 Gender and Sexuality Expression in Schools Survey to explore 1293 Australian LGBTIQA+ students’ relevant experiences and definitions around religious freedom in schools. Basic descriptive and correlative statistical analyses were undertaken for quantitative data in SPSS and Excel including chi square tests; alongside Leximancer-supported thematic analyses and poetic transcription of qualitative responses. LGBTIQA+ students defined ‘religious freedom’ as positive freedoms of religious (non-)memberships and (non-)beliefs, without interpersonal/institutional harm or coercion. They often framed freedom using ‘transformative’ pro-LGBTIQA+ ideals. LGBTIQA+ students were less likely to experience ‘religious freedom’ in religious schools; where policy and educational interventions appear necessary.


Introduction
Data on citizens' opinions and experiences about contentious social issues have made crucial contributions in guiding various human rights protections internationally around gender, sex and sexuality. Key examples are Republic of Ireland and Australian 'yes' votes on marriage equality and/or abortion rights (Burki 2019;Ecker et al. 2019-10;Tobin 2019); and international data collection around gender and sexuality conversion therapies or enforced interventions for people of intersex variations (United Nations, 2018. The Australian Government amended the Sex Discrimination Act to cover gender identity and expression, sexual orientation and intersex status based on databased recommendations from various parliamentary inquiries (The Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, 2013a, 2013b).
One key legislative debate for which citizen perspectives have been called, concerns restricting or expanding exemptions in Australian federal anti-discrimination law allowing religious schools 'freedom' to discriminate against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex and asexual (LGBTIQA+) people in terms of negating treatment or punitive measures including expulsions (Australian Parliament 2019Parliament -2020Parliament -2021. Government funding increases to Australian private (including religious) schools were over three times as high as to public schools in the last decade, underscoring how they are especially privileged in Australia (Cobbaldi 2023). The current Prime Minister is one of several in a top leadership role in Australia or other nations in the last decade, who has been calling for ways forward in the extension of protections for students on all grounds, in ways that still protect religious freedomand decrying Australia's lack of progress and data on this issue (Albanese 2022). Inquiries often overlooked the definitions of 'religious freedom' from LGBTIQA+ students themselveswhom the debate over schools' 'religious freedom' for discrimination and expulsions especially concerns. Education and policy decisions about LGBTIQA+ students should not occur without LGBTIQA+ students (Bromdal et al. 2021;Ollis et al. 2022). This paper firstly offers transformative theories of religious freedom; secondly outlines broadly relevant religious restrictions and research around religious freedom debates in education; and then thirdly reports on the framing and results of a study of Australian LGBTIQA+ students' definitions and experiences of 'religious freedom'.

Literature review
Transformative theories of 'religious freedom' in schools for gender, sex and sexuality Disputes over the intersections in religious freedom and gender, sex and sexuality rights in education have re-shaped the definition and theorization of 'religious freedom'. Several theorists endorse state limitations on expression of religious beliefs in schooling which harm equality or promote gender, sex or sexuality discrimination (Brettschneider 2010;O'Sullivan 2021;Richter 2018;Rosenblum 1998Rosenblum , 2008. These include liberal humanists, liberal and radical feminists, Indigenous Studies experts and pragmatic post-structuralists many of whom promote what they term 'transformative' theories of religious freedom (Brettschneider 2010;Okin 1999;Richter 2018;Rosenblum 1998Rosenblum , 2008. For example, democratic liberal humanist Corey Brettschneider (2010) defines religious freedom as protecting the religious practices and underlying beliefs of citizens. Protections necessitate limitations (without coercive sanctions) on institutional religious expression. Protections further require attempts at transformation if institutions oppose religious freedom itself or deny the concept of equal citizenship. Brettschneider uses the example of state intervention at Bob Jones University, reducing the university's coercive sexual and gender conduct codes and inter-racial marriage bans. Brettschneider argues this state intervention did not make the university less religious, but less discriminatory and coercively dominionistic. For Brettschneider, state rights commitments require state transformation and education attempts for religious educational institutions, promoting and justifying rights principles. Brettschneider also uses the case of complaints about texts in schools to show that religious freedom means representation of both multiple religious/atheist views, and multiple representations of genderincluding that of women who choose to be home-makers or other lifestyles. Brettschneider promotes informing public funding allocations by testing religious educational institutions' abilities to cater to sex, gender and sexuality rights. Australian religious schools' sizing and receipt of extensive government funding and resources would make them targets for transformational work in this viewto the extent they sought to limit free and equal citizenship.
Similarly, post-structuralist Dagmar Richter (2018) posits that conservative right-wing definitions of religious freedom used in an attempted European Court of Human Rights case to justify parental shielding of children from exposure to democratic mass schooling systems' individualism and pluralism, were over-reach. She clarifies the child's right to education as co-occurring with an 'open future' that limits parent 'rights' to impose mono-culturalist religious instruction in State schools, exposure exemptions and home schooling for religious reasons. Modern multi-religious/multi-socio-cultural societies' complexifications necessitate new approaches beyond the old 'indoctrination formula'. For Richter, the child's right to education contains rights to learning standards of objectivity (including scientific evidence) and modelling of the weighing of interests necessary to modern democratic life.
Multi-culturalist feminist Susan Okin (1999) similarly argues that multi-cultural societies require pluralist education and support for diverse views of sex, gender and sexuality in schools. Further, Indigenous Studies scholar Sandy O'Sullivan (2021) asserts that the gender binary remains trapped within socio-religious ideals of colonization within education systems framing Indigenous peoples and relationships in problematic ways. O'Sullivan uses direct examples of Catholic education edicts on teaching a closed ideal of family modelling and gender binary identities released during Australia's and other colonized nations' religious freedom debates over schooling (Congregation for Catholic Education for Educational Institutions 2019). For O'Sullivan this move illustrates the continuation of the colonial project of denying or maintaining the incomprehensibility of difference in gender, gender diversity and kinship models within Indigenous and other peoples as a complex erasure. It casts aside Indigenous identity and culture, replacing it with the colonial simulacrum.
Clearly Brettshneider, Richter, Okin and O'Sullivan's framings of freedom oppose insularized models of religious schooling autonomy on the rights of women, LGBTIQA+ people, people of diverse faiths and cultures and/or Indigenous peoples. However, they do so to varying degrees. Brettschneider (2010) proposes the option for religious organizations to 'opt-out' of the dialectical process of state and citizen engagement (which might leave some room for discriminatory universities forgoing public funding for example). The option does not require state acceptance of anti-democratic dominions but that implication may be unavoidable. Feminist Nancy Rosenblum (1998Rosenblum ( , 2008 models transformative religious freedom around interpersonal and institutional citizenship only. She opposes a 'logic of congruence' that might require state promotion of liberal values 'all the way down' in citizens' personal morality. She sees the transformational aspects of religious freedom only as having engagements with approaches to public and communal social spaces; not personal belief or private life (Rosenblum 2008). Contra Brettschneider, Richter (2018) weighs children's educational rights above parental opt-out requests on religious bases alone. Richter promotes ensuring religious educational institutions' provisions align with state non-discriminatory requirements.
O'Sullivan (2021) posits reinstatements of kinship and truth in representation that fundamentally support First Nations' agency by challenging colonial reductions, as part of inclusion to be negotiated through permission and an ongoing conversation. For O'Sullivan this journey may include considering how religions represent their own lauded figures, not just other people. For example, accounting for Catholic saints who confound stated religious binary gender and kinship ideals (from Anastasia the Patrician to St Marina/Marinos). Indeed many Indigenous authors have positioned uplifting Indigenous Queer people and challenging colonial conceptualizations of gender and sexuality as core to anti-racist and anti-colonial work (Roberts et al. 2021). Feminist Susan Okin (1999) saw multi-cultural transformational models of religious freedom as indirectly causing some religions and their schooling to 'go extinct'; where wholly maintained by autocratic monoculturalism and sex, gender or sexuality inequalities.

Australian schools' 'religious freedom' in practice and research
In practice, the vexed intersections of religious freedom and LGBTIQA+ students' rights to non-discrimination in schools include complex considerations. Firstly, restrictions on religious freedom are inherent to international protections treaties to which many countries, including Australia, commit. Limits on religious freedom are: . compliance with local laws/regulations in The Refugee Convention (UN 1951, Article 2); . following jobs' inherent requirements including equity in The C111 Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention (ILO 1958, Article 2); . public safety, order, health, rights and freedoms in The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (UN 1966, Articles 18, 26, 27); . preventing employment termination on bases including sex, marital status, family responsibilities, religion, political opinion or social origin in The C158 Termination of Employment Convention (ILO 1982, Article 5); . preventing violence and discrimination around sexual orientation and gender identity in A/HRC/RES/17/19 (UN 2011); . preventing fatalities and ensuring quality fatality investigations for sexuality or gender minorities in A/HRC/RES/27/32 (UN 2014); . preventing discrimination on sexual orientation and gender identity in A/HRC/RES/32/2 (UN 2016).
Secondly, religious freedom restrictions are inherent to many countries' own constitutional and legal protections. Australia's limits on religious freedom are: . preventing governments requiring religious observances, prohibitions or laws/tests for any office or public trust in the Australian Constitution (Commonwealth of Australia 1900, Section 116); . following jobs' inherent requirements including equity in The Fair Work Act 2009 (Australian Government 2017, Sections 351 and 772); . protecting refugee status for people persecuted over social group membership or political opinion in Migration Act 1958 (Australian Government 2019, Section 36); . preventing discrimination on sex, intersex status, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, marital or relationship status in The Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Australian Government 2014).
Thirdly, school conditions are complicated by Australian state laws, including those requiring youths' attendance at (state or religious/independent) schools of their guardians' choosing until 16-17yrs (depending on state). Around a third of Australian schooling occurs in religious institutions, mostly Catholic schooling (ABS 2021a). Since students are thus effectively forced to attend such schools by governments; it is arguably unconstitutional to allow their schools to have religious compliance tests, including for or about LGBTIQA+ people. Further, conversion therapy bans in several states (ACT Government 2020; QLD Government 2020; Victorian Government 2021) prevent many schools from promoting suppression or change of LGBTIQA+ students' identities. Multiple Australian politicians have sought to further expand or restrict religious schools' uncertain 'freedom' to discriminate against LGBTIQA+ students (Albanese 2022; Australian Parliament 2019-2020-2021). Most (93%) of Singleton et al.'s (2019) 1200 Australian Generation Z telephone survey participants aged 13-18yrs agreed with the statement: 'Having people of many different faiths makes Australia a better place to live'; and three quarters (74%) had a positive attitude towards minority religions. However, most (52%) had no religion themselves and most (84%) supported secondary schools' obligation to allow students to openly express any sexual or gender orientation (Singleton et al. 2019). A religious subgroup from Gahan, Jones, and Hillier's (2014) 3134 LGBTIQA+ Australians aged 14-21yrs in the Writing Themselves in 3 anonymous online survey, was contrasted against the other participants and comparable religious sub-group from the 2004 version of the survey. The 2010 and 2004 religious subgroups were more likely to be socially isolated, had more negative school experiences, and were at greater risk of self-harm and suicidality. The 2010 religious sub-group now had higher expectations of how they should be treated by the religions, saw fewer contradictions in keeping their faith and LGBTIQA+ identities. Of the 3134 LGBTIQA+ Australians aged 14-21yrs, 7% were exposed to conversion therapy ideology messaging in schools that gay people should become straight (Jones 2015) around four times more in Christian schools than in government schools.
The Voices of Experience survey showed 4.9% of 2500 mostly heterosexual cisgender students aged 14+ yrs were exposed to conversion ideology; over a tenth in conservative schools (Jones 2020). Exposed students' concentration, grades and attendance declined. They were more likely to consider self-harm (81.8%); enact self-harm (61.8%); consider suicide (83.6%) and attempt suicide (29.1%). The Writing Themselves in 4 survey of 6418 LGBTIQA+ youth aged 14-21yrs showed half of those exposed to conversion ideology in schools were exposed to conversion practices; which had correlations with (1) demographics (being male, multi-genderattracted, religious); (2) social experiences (increased rejection and harassment); (3) social outcomes (decreased education and housing) and (4) increased suicidality and self-harm . A gap exists in consideration of how LGBTIQA+ students define religious freedom; with the theories, political and media debates and surveys discussing their positioning, currently excluding their voices. The author therefore deemed the current study necessary, aiming to explore LGBTIQA+ students' own definitions and experiences around religious freedoms in education institutions. The present study asked: (1) How do LGBTIQA+ students experience religious freedoms and restrictions around their gender and sexuality identities in religious and non-religious education institutions? (2) How do LGBTIQA+ students define religious freedom?

National survey
I was informed by the ideals of positive social-psychology affirming self-constructions by and for LGBTIQA+ youth (Bracken and Lamprecht 2003), in designing the current study: the Gender and Sexuality Expression in Schools survey. As a lesbian working with, in and for the LGBTIQA+ community; I privileged the values of critical Queer views in overseeing the survey's design (Bromdal et al. 2021;Ollis et al. 2022). This included re-centring LGBTIQA+ insider insights into, and collective voices on, decisions about themselves in service systems and research. Moreover, my core lens centred on interrupting normativity through questioning and subversion of authority (Britzman 1998;Nash and Brown 2016)questioning normalized/legalized levels and angles of 'religious freedom' in schools and subverting who is 'authorized' to define it. Further, I privileged use of larger-scale data enabling many direct LGBTIQA+ community voices and views to be gleaned for citation (Davis 2015), to enable LGBTIQA+ youth to collectively define 'religious freedom'.
My initial planning of survey topics and wording evolved in consultation with an LGBTIQA + youth reference group. Ethics approval was gained from the Macquarie University Human Research Ethics Committee (520221130837287) to conduct an online anonymous questionnaire of Australian LGBTIQA+ students aged 14-25yrs. The Gender and Sexuality Expression in Schools survey was hosted via Qualtrics. The survey asked approx. 50 forced-choice and open-ended questions (depending on selections triggering additional questions) on their: demographic information; schooling policies and practices; exposure to anti-LGBTIQA+ and conversion ideology messages and practices; and outcomes.
The sex, gender and sexuality questions applied the Australian Bureau of Statistics/ABS (2021b) and UNESCO (2018) standards, wherein sex includes sex characteristics and initial sex allocation at birth. Gender includes socio-cultural roles determined by asking how participants describe their gender identity and offering common choices (ABS 2021b; UNESCO 2018); and write-in space for individuation. Ethical considerations included that the participants self-selected to join the research, could skip any question and were supplied cohort help lines and support groups in the survey. Guardian approvals were not required, given past data on guardian abuse (Jones 2015). Recruitment occurred through Meta ad packages in a two-week period (May-June 2022). Announcements were made via university media, LGBTQ+ websites and word-of-mouth. Overall 2276 people responded. Data were downloaded, cleansed (removing incomplete and non-target-group surveys) and analysed in SPSS v28.0.0 and Excel (quantitative data) and Leximancer Desktop v.5 (qualitative data).

Data analysis
In total there were 1293 participant surveys. I undertook basic descriptive and correlative statistical analyses for quantitative data in SPSS and Excel including chi square tests.
Within the qualitative analyses of survey written responses, my analyses foregrounded LGBTIQA+ youth participants' own concepts as they appear within participants' own conceptual frames and terms using initial grounded thematic analyses emphasizing commonalities. I focussed on emergent categories/strategies using two fluid coding stages (Charmaz and Bryant 2011). Firstly, I applied the automated content analysis programme Leximancer, historically used in sociology and psychology studies (Cretchley, Rooney, and Gallois 2010), to analyse participants' definitions of 'religious freedom'. I collated answers into a PDF, and uploaded it to Leximancer.
Leximancer uses word occurrence and co-occurrence counts to identify dominant themes and their sub-concepts, and how they relate. I applied Leximancer to ensure dominant thematic concepts and their 'typical' quote samples were identified and examined systematically, based on data representativeness. I merged equivalent concepts in different tense (force/forced) and quantity (religion/religions) in Leximancer's conceptediting stages. I applied default Leximancer settings at automatic levels to auto-generate a reproducible Leximancer concept map evidencing how participant comments' overarching themes and sub-concepts related. The map auto-named theme titles for the dominant sub-concept per cluster. It visually shows asymmetric concept occurrence and co-occurrence information (size, relationships and groupings of themes and sub-concepts) from software-driven content analyses of comments. I kept map settings at 100% visibility making all sub-concepts visible, and 60% theme size showing only common themes/overlaps. Smith and Humphreys (2006, 262) verified Leximancer algorithms for foregrounding the global significance and context of concepts and their relations, ensuring analyses focus on typicality, not atypical anecdotes. Secondly, I elevated all Leximancer-identified themes for theoretical sampling. I used open coding processes including line-by-line coding; separating different concepts within single stories for cross-checking of concept-level and individual-level 'meanings'.
I report Leximancer-selected themes and typical quotes using gender-congruent pseudonyms, following poetic transcriptionspoem-like compositions from participants' words (Glesne 1997;Thunig 2022). I apply poetic processes, lifting the most typical Leximancer-selected quote phrasings to present them cumulatively by theme as 'collective LGBTIQA+ student voice'. This arts-based inductive approach was previously adopted within Indigenous and other subversive research methodologies seeking an oppositional stance to traditional ways of analysing stories (Thunig 2022;Thunig and Jones 2021). It provides space to centre participants' direct words and phrasing, focussing on key moments or emotions of their storying often marginalized by research analyses, without risking anonymity or harms common to traditional colonizing heteronormative scientific analyses. Poetry fits critical Queer projects of disrupting reporting conventions to re-centre Queer concerns and feelings (Glesne 1997), countering LGBTIQA+ exclusion from education debates (Bromdal et al. 2021;Ollis et al. 2022).
LGBTIQA+ students' experiences of school religious freedom and restriction Religious private/independent schools were attended by Australian LGBTIQA+ students who were atheist and agnostic, as for government schools. However, LGBTIQA+ students in religious private/independent schools were more likely to be exposed to religious views with greater frequency [X2 (4, N = 1204) = 969.6846, p = <.001]. Figure 1 shows 89% of LGBTIQA+ students at religious private/independent schools said their schools addressed religion all the time or often, compared to 2.1% at government schools.
LGBTIQA+ students at religious independent/private schools were significantly more likely than those at government schools to report that their school: enforced a core religion (for staff 43.0% vs. < 1.0%, for students 33.4% vs. < 1.0%, for family/guardians 13.7% vs. < 1.0%); required signing of contracts to uphold a religion or its views (for staff 37.5% vs. 1.5%, for students 19.5% vs. 1.5%, for family/guardians 14.5% vs. 1.5%); or required signing of contracts that were anti-LGBTQIA+ expression or support (for staff 6.4% vs. 1.5%, for students 3.2% vs. < 1.0%, for family/guardians 2.7% vs. < 1.0%). They were significantly more likely than those at government schools to report their schools' policies restricted: openly identifying as LGBTIQA+ (30.2% vs. 6.5%); uniform alignment to  LGBTIQA+ students at religious independent/private schools were significantly less likely than those at government schools to report that their school: had discrimination/ bullying policies covering discrimination against LGBTQIA+ people (19.8% vs. 37.6%); allowed students to use a bathroom/changing room aligned to gender identity over assigned sex at birth (11.8% vs. 23.9%) or allowed students to bring a same-sex partner to school formals (31.2% vs. 56.8%). They were significantly less likely to say their school celebrated LGBTIQA+ themed events (under a tenth of religious private/independent students vs. over half of government/public students). LGBTIQA+ students at religious independent/private schools were significantly less likely than those at government schools to report that their school retained (did not fire or expel): divorced staff (77.7% vs. 90.0%); unmarried pregnant staff (59.8% vs. 88.5%); sexually-active students (66.3% vs. 87.2%) or unmarried pregnant students (24.8% vs. 58.4%). Under a third (31.4%) of students at a religious private/independent school reported that their school would accept someone who openly identified as or acted on an LGBTIQA+ identity, compared to half (49.6%) at a government/public school.
LGBTIQA+ students' definitions of 'religious freedom' Participants were asked 'What does "religious freedom" mean to you?'. Leximancer uncovered four themes in the 523 comments offered outlined following: believe, religion, others and forced. Figure 2 is included to verify the dominance of these four themes.

'Believe'
The strongest theme 'believe' revealed LGBTIQA+ students define religious freedom as individuals' freedom of beliefto believe or reject religious or other ideas including on gender and sexuality (257 hits, sub-concepts: believe, freedom, express, judgement, follow, things, act, gender, important, need, sexuality, access). Common Leximancer- selected phrasings of these ideas repeatedly seen in around half of these quotes included phrasing seen in a quote by Freeman (16yrs, trans-male, gay, QLD religious school) 'You have the right to believe what you want to believe' and in addition wording seen in a quote by Cruz (16yrs, non-binary, pansexual, QLD government school) 'Not feeling the need to believe in something specific or even anything at all'. Indeed, Figure 3's poetic transcription shows many students emphasized their freedom to believe in 'nothing', to hold 'no belief' or 'believe no things', or to be 'not sure'. Around a third of LGBTIQA+ students emphasized their freedom to express their sex, gender and sexuality as part of their beliefs without judgement; as part of their belief system. Mikayla (16yrs, cis-female, lesbian, ACT government school) broadened this to 'the right to think, express and act upon what you deeply believe, according to the dictates of conscience' on one's gender and sexuality. Armand (17yrs, cis-male, gay, NSW government school) included open expression of beliefs 'freely, without punishment, judgement or exclusion in any facet' of sexuality. Millard (16yrs, trans-male, bisexual, QLD Christian school) also emphasized expression of belief 'the ability to express your beliefs, values and practices without judgement or restrictions'. Byron (16yrs, trans-male, bisexual, QLD government school) also expressed this sub-theme of 'being able to believe in what you want without backlash'. He explained that backlash created limitations on or wounded LGBTIQA+ individuals' sense of religious freedom; 'I do have quite a lot of religious freedom but my gender and sexuality is something that would probably hold me back religiously if everyone tells me I'm going to hell'. Thus, LGBTIQA+ students defined religious freedom as a positive individual freedom of belief, but part of the theme (overlapping the theme 'others' in the Leximancer map) extended this to a right to belief without external backlash/judgement, especially as an LGBTIQA+ person holding that belief.

'Religion'
The second similarly strong theme 'religion' showed LGBTIQA+ students define religious freedom as the need to respect peoples' freedom to join or not, or maintain or leave membership to any formal or informal religionincluding minority religions (256 hits, sub-concepts: religion, able, people, means, having, someone, allowed, excuse, hate, live). For example, typical Leximancer-selected quotes emphasizing religion choice included phrasing by Treyvon (15yrs, trans-male, bisexual, QLD government school) 'you may be whatever religion you wish to be'. Most responses also noted the freedom to not follow religions. Esme (15yrs, cis-female, unknown sexuality, ACT religious school) defined religious freedom to include a typical articulation of religion abstention freedoms: 'People are allowed to follow and participate in whatever religion they'd like and are free to choose one or none at all'. It was almost as common to include the precept that there should be no negative consequences either way, Camila (16yrs, cis-female, bisexual, VIC government school) used the most typical argument for non-discrimination: 'You have the right to follow whatever religion you desire without discrimination'. Cyrus (21yrs, nonbinary, asexual, SA government school) promoted 'Being able to live amongst people who celebrate and practise a variety of religions, and live peacefully. No hate, no bitterness' as cited in the Figure 4 poetic transcription.
However, for around half of the group freedom of religious memberships were expanded upon as a right regardless of sex characteristics, gender and/or sexualityand in such cases the precondition of no negative consequences tended to focus instead on judgement. For example, Griffin (14yrs, Unknown gender, undeclared sexuality, QLD religious school) said that regardless of gender and sexuality 'You should be able to be a part of any religion and have access to anything you need for it without the fear of judgement, punishment or abandonment'. Gwendolyn (15yrs, cis-female, asexual, WA government school) said in a typical comment seeking to limit religious judgements, that she believed religious freedom included 'Having the right to practice a religion and be LGBTIQA+ without judgement'. Royalty (17yrs, cis-female, bisexual, NSW Catholic school) also defined religious freedom as including for LGBTIQA+ people 'practicing a religion of your choice without an underlying fear of discrimination, danger or judgment'. Thus, LGBTIQA+ students defined religious freedom as a positive choice in religion (non-)memberships, but part of the theme (overlapping the theme 'others' in the Leximancer map) extended this to a right to (non-)membership to include a status without external backlash/judgement around being LGBTIQA+.

'Others'
The third theme 'others' showed LGBTIQA+ students limit definitions of religious freedom to exclude discrimination against others' rights, choices and safety (256 hits, sub-concepts: others, discrimination, long, harm, choose, anyone, ability, rights, everyone, fear, hurting, individual, change). Frevia (17yrs, cis-woman, lesbian, QLD government school) limited religious freedom to individuals' religious autonomy, excluding dominion over others: That those who follow a religion are able to do so with free will. However, I do not believe that others should be able to dictate my actions based on their own religion. If I do not follow their religion then it should not have an effect on my life. And vice versa, following a religion should not change the way you are treated and treat others within our society.
Jazmine (15yrs, cis-female, 'mostly' straight, QLD distance education) defined it as 'the ability to believe and act based on your religious or non-religious views as you wish as long as it doesn't do significant or unnecessary harm to others' and Lena (16yrs, ciswoman, questioning, WA religious school) similarly offered, 'The freedom to believe in your religion, and to practice your religious practices as long as they do not harm others'. Gage (16yrs, non-binary, pansexual, QLD government school) defined it as a state where 'every individual can be free to practice their own religion to whatever extent they want without the powers to affect others in their lives'. Figure 5's poetic transcription also reflects how Flora (16yrs, cis-female, lesbian, QLD government school) defined religious freedom as when 'any religion is allowed to be practiced, assuming it does not harm others or impose a way of life on those who aren't of the same religion'.
Sage (16yrs, fluid, questioning, QLD religious school) similarly limited religious freedom from including legislative or political dominion: Being able to express your religion freelyin clothing, prayer, religious practices etc. However being religious should never come with the assumption that your religion is the 'right one' and that your views are 'correct'. Be religious, that's fine it's great. But never impose religious views into politics (specifically human rights) and more importantly don't impose them onto other people (this is specific to Australia and other secular countries). That should be the extent of religious freedom.
Bobby (16yrs, non-binary, pansexual, VIC government school) argued that religious freedom was being defined differently by different religious groupssome minority faiths seemed to be fighting for individual rights; 'Depends on what religion, so if you're Muslim you should be able to were the hijab with no trouble'. Bobby saw Christianity however as seeking domination over Australian laws; 'If you're Christian things like being against gay marriage and abortion and any law thing that harms other people? No.' Several students denounced hypocrisy. For example, Montgomery (15yrs, trans-man, aromantic pansexual, WA government school) specified that people should be 'Not manipulating the bible so that you can hate someone for something the bible didn't even translate correctly'. Montgomery cited that this was 'Especially when the individual hating is committing things classed as sins yet excuses those as less important and more forgivable'. Paris (15yrs, non-binary, bisexual, SA religious school) said 'religious freedom SHOULD be the ability to freely express your beliefs, but instead it is being used as a weapon to treat people poorly under the excuse of religion'. Cassidy (16yrs, cis-female, pansexual, WA government school) said 'Religious freedom means to me, to be able to live in peace knowing you are safe to acknowledge, believe and practice without disrespect or plain hate crime'.

'Forced'
The final theme 'forced' showed LGBTIQA+ students also limit definitions of religious freedom to exclude interpersonal or institutional enforcement of faith in ideas or deities, or coercion of religious practices, onto other people (46 hits, sub-concepts: forced, faith, god). For example, Davion (16yrs trans-male, gay, QLD government school) specified religious freedom included 'not having anyone tell you what you should believe in'; and Van (16yrs trans-male, unlabelled sexuality, WA government school) defined it as a condition in which 'each individual is allowed to partake in their religion if it is not harming anyone and if it is not being forced into anyone'. Lydia (16yrs, ciswoman, queer, QLD government school) specified 'every religious and spiritual person has the right and feels comfortable to live their lives in their religion whilst not pushing it on anyone'. Elliana (17yrs, cis-female, bisexual, VIC government school) said: Everyone can practice whatever religion they want, as long as they don't shove it down my throat or try and convince me to follow their religion. Also, religion should never be used as an excuse to discriminate against someone or take away basic human rights.
Many comments including the phrasing 'without being forced', 'not forcing it' or similar, are echoed in the 'Forced' Figure 6 poetic transcription.
A quarter of LGBTIQA+ students asserting this definition specified a limitation on enforced or coerced beliefs and practices of dominant religions in schooling settings. For example, in theme-typical Leximancer-selected comments, Draven (16yrs, transmasc, questioning, VIC religious school) said religious freedom, given he was atheist, should mean 'Not being forced to participate in religious school activities'. Dorian (15yrs, demigirl, lesbian, QLD religious school) said that as an atheist she was currently lacking the religious freedom 'that you're not forced to practice in any religion that the school wants you to'. Elodie (15yrs, cis-female, asexual/bi, WA Christian school) resented how as an agnostic at school 'I still had to entertain guests at my church connect group. And go too all the school's Christian education classes'. Frankie (18yrs, non-binary, bisexual, NSW Catholic school) was questioning their religion and wanted religious freedom to include 'no state or federal enforced religious views' in schools. Likewise Morgan (17yrs, fluid/demiboy, asexual/aromantic, TAS religious school) opposed scenarios in schools where Australian laws were ignored for religious rules' enforcement only, so that 'discriminatory bigots are allowed to be homophobic and exclusive of LGBTQIA+ folk and be lawfully ignorant'.

Discussion
The present study reproduced other Australian studies' findings of increased pansexual identification trends , and increased atheism trends (Singleton et al. 2019). It also included higher representation from those under 18yrs and assigned female at birth as seen in online surveys generally (Curtin, Presser, and Singer 2000); and higher portions of trans-male youth as seen reflecting transgender youth interventions studies (Das et al. 2022).
The study showed LGBTIQA+ student definitions of 'religious freedom' reflected trends towards including positive individual rights to freedom and non-coercion in schooling of belief and religion memberships or abstentions seen in existing international and local legislation (Commonwealth of Australia 1900; UN 1966, Articles 18, 26, 27). It highlighted that religious schools were less likely to support this than government schools, although some government schools could be problematic too. LGBTIQA+ student definitions emphasized a desire for interpersonal and institutional limitations on the promotion or dominion of beliefs and religions in general, in schools and around LGBTIQA+ statuses; reflecting international human rights legislation (UN 2016) and the Australian constitution (Commonwealth of Australia 1900). LGBTIQA+ students' framings of religious freedom limiting dominion also echoed framings by Australian religious minority advocates; and contrasted framings by Australian Christian advocates centring dominion (Ezzy, Banham, and Deaman 2023).
However, a significant trend across Leximancer-uncovered themes included how many LGBTIQA+ students' 'religious freedom' definitions asserted rights to 'non-judgement' whether for LGBTIQA+ status, or for that status in combination with their beliefs or religious memberships. This did not reflect traditional definitions or laws on religious freedom or the realities many experienced in religious schooling, but rather reflected the higher expectations amongst LGBTIQA+ Australian youth for religions' acceptance of them (Gahan, Jones, and Hillier 2014). It also reflected transformational views of religious freedom seen in some modern theorizingparticularly allowance for multi-culturalism and pluralism (Okin 1999;Richter 2018). It further echoed how Canadian LGBTIQA+ students seek to be 'activists' not just 'victims' in religious schools (Callaghan 2016(Callaghan , 2018; and broader generational desires for avoidance of social backlash/ judgement seen in teen social media studies (Agater 2022).
Non-religious or questioning LGBTIQA+ students can be legally required by parents and state laws combined, to attend highly religious schools of high religious dominion, with attendant higher gender and sexuality rights violations. Increased religiosity of schools was associated with decreased religious freedoms as defined by LGBTIQA+ students, for both staff and students. This echoed research showing publicly funded Canadian Catholic schools also systematically sanctioned LGBTIQA+ staff and students (Callaghan 2015(Callaghan , 2016(Callaghan , 2018. In Australia, religious schools were less likely to include freedoms of religion choice or practice, or beliefs; and more likely to have contracts enforcing set religions and specific anti-LGBTIQA+ beliefs and practices. In more religious schools, dominant religious views were more likely to be pushed through many avenues (policy, daily practice, pedagogy) and dominant religions' activities and ceremonies were enforced upon atheists, agnostics and people of other faiths. Despite this finding, it is important to remember the possibility that religiosity of an educational institution does not need to equal discrimination, as shown by the Bob Jones University case where the university remained highly religious even after removing discriminatory policies (Brettschneider 2010). In both the Australian religious and Canadian Catholic schools, alternative possibilities might simply not be pursued whilst laws and public funding enable anti-LGBTIQA+ discrimination to remain an option. A limitation of the study was that reproductive rights were not directly considered in the qualitative questions, however treatment of this theme appeared to follow trends in treatment of LGBTIQA+ people in the quantitative data.

Conclusions
LGBTIQA+ students broadly defined religious freedom as a positive freedom of religious (non-) memberships and general thought/beliefs limited by harm or enforcement/coercion of others. Moreover, significant portions of LGBTIQA+ students see religious freedom as including a lack of judgement, discrimination or coercion around their LGBTIQA+ identity status or expression in ways that aligned with some more radical transformative conceptualizations in feminist and other religious freedom theories. Given LGBTIQA+ students are significantly less likely to experience religious freedom as they define it in highly religious schools, education leadership across Australia and other democratic contexts should consider how international human rights can be better ensured for students without prolonged cultural wars over policy-making. Swift protections for education access for all, regardless of LGBTIQA+ status or expression, should be ensured in line with human rights obligations and with consideration for their voices and definitions.
However, Australian federal and state governments are obligated not just to enact, but pro-actively lead commitment to democracy and human rights, through educational and promotional outreach to religious education systems. A lack of judgement of LGBTIQA+ identities or religious beliefs cannot be legislated forand all students should be taught that freedom of religion excludes enforced positivity/endorsement. Nonetheless non-discriminatory education/service access and treatment by organizations and individuals, for both LGBTIQA+ and religious people, are realistic aims under current international treaties. State curricula on democracy and human rights (including sex, gender and sexuality rights and religious freedom limits), should be required within Australian school funding arrangements (where religious/independent schooling is largely government funded). Religions and religious schools should consider LGBTIQA+ youths' growing desire to be welcomed authentically into their folds within not only democratic and ethical considerations, but self-sustainment (Okin 1999), and relational accountability and respect for diversity more broadly (O'Sullivan 2021). Future studies could consider more directly how girls, Indigenous students and other affected minorities define 'religious freedom' in schools.