Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
as: sexuality, gender, language, refugees or ethnicity and discuss how Australian schools are
meeting the challenge of equity and access for (impacted) minority groups.
The challenge of meeting equitable and accessible practices for gender diverse students within
the school environment has been a key issue highlighted by the media in recent years. Gender
gender), bigender (both a woman and a man), non-binary (neither woman nor man)” as well as
transgender, Trans*, intersex and gender fluid (Smith et al., 2014, p. 6). Contrastingly,
cisgender is a term used to “describe when a person’s gender identity matches social
expectations given their sex assigned at birth” (Smith et al., 2014, p. 5-6). The predominant
and normalised societal discourses regarding gender is inclined toward gender essentialism and
heteronormativity, with gender diverse students often greatly impacted through policies of
which perpetuate the dominant discourse and cisgender-privilege power imbalances. Often,
students in secondary school settings often report routine exclusion and social isolation due to
both peer and teacher influence (Ullman, 2016b, p. 3). As such, there is a present need to
explicitly and critically investigate the dominant discourse and re-conceptualise the ways in
which knowledge of sexuality and gender is portrayed, discussed and communicated within
equitable practice and inclusivity. Feminist and poststructuralist theory will be utilised to
1 18025558
Due to cisgendered privilege within education, gender diverse students will often face
restrictive access to and participation in, achievement, fairness and opportunity in education.
The case study of Erik Ly (Cook, 2015), a seventeen-year-old transgender student from Gilson
predetermined uniform standards according to sex, “being banned from joining the boy's cross-
country team and using the male toilets” (Cook, 2015). This conceptualisation within the school
places an attempt to resist or disrupt dominant feminine discourses as deviant and abnormal.
Ly furthers to discuss the intensive reinforcement of hegemonic masculinity so far, that he “did
not feel safe telling staff he was a transgender boy”, conveying a clear gender regime being
enforced and governed by “clearly punitive and regulatory social conventions” (Cook, 2015;
Ullman, 2016a, p. 45). Within this, teachers and staff are the individuals policing gender norms,
demonstrating “teachers drawing upon their own understandings … largely from essentialist
understandings that invoke and re-affirm gendered positioning” (Rawlings, 2016, p. 54). In
turn, there is an alarming potential to obstruct school equity policies and practices. As such, a
lack of knowledge on gender diversity perpetuates intelligible masculine and feminine genders
that are reinforced by teachers in schools, subsequently impacting upon policy, resources and
equity.
as structural and systematic inequity, and explicitly convey social injustice inherent within
essentialist and reductive binary of genders, fluidity of gender expression is often restricted
and manifests a power imbalance. As Ullman (2016a) states, “failure to perform one’s gender
‘correctly’ often results in negative reinforcement”, with the system attempting to “render
2 18025558
justice and reaffirm natural order of gender appropriate behaviour” (p. 45). This attempt to
reaffirm dominant gender binaries is evident in the case study of Erik Ly (Cook, 2015), in
having to conform to the ‘girls uniform’, despite expressing his gender as transgender. This
informal learning of gender and sexuality is presented in a social reward and punishment
such as a gender-based uniform. This informal social reward and punishment framework
proves harmful, with Ullman (2016b) conveying a correlation between a positive and
confident and motivated learners” within gender diverse students (p. 10). Keddie (2012)
well as creating learning experiences that are not reductive to gender stereotypes. It is therefore
paramount for teachers to “deconstruct the model of traditional gender segregation and norm
enforcement” to provide a safe and supportive environment for full participation of gender
diverse students (Jones et al., 2016, p. 168). Schools should aim to dismantle the social reward
and punishment framework inherent to gender expectations and promote inclusive policies. On
a physical level, this may appear as allowing autonomous decision within physical
students. Bakhtin (as quoted in Francis, 2010) argues language reflects and constructs power
relations, with views of dominant social groups being positioned as unitary and total (p. 479).
As such, individuals and groups maintain a power to construct meanings to allow objects to
exist, with Rawlings (2016) arguing the culture of regulation limiting potential outcomes and
3 18025558
possibilities. In an application to gender, the dominant discourse constructs a dualist
construction of femininity and masculinity offers a form of restriction to identity, and creates
a hierarchical position for certain individuals. In turn, gender diverse students fall outside of
the privileged gender roles, and are socially marginalised, isolated, and removed from power.
Explicitly critiquing the power and authority inherent within cisgender privilege may provide
the opportunity to restore power to gender diverse students. Rawlings (2016), drawing on
Judith Butler (1990), argues gender “exists as socially and culturally informed expressions
(stylised acts) that are continually produced and reproduced” (p. 41). In turn, it is important to
note the power of pedagogical practices to be a site of production, and re-production for the
dominant gender discourses. As such, further than simplistic revision of policies disallowing
discussed within the classroom would prove pertinent in offering greater potential outcomes
for gender diverse students, of which may currently seem inaccessible. Ullman (2014)
discusses the inclusion of “material on same-sex attraction … but also content specific to the
study of gender as a social phenomenon, incorporating theories of social learning and social
A case study on Jeremy Beach (Cook, 2016) a Year 12 transgender student attending the Avila
girls high school. Beach describes his schooling as “inherently, a very gendered environment”,
claiming ‘this made it more difficult’ (Cook, 2016). However, it is pertinent to note it was a
teacher who noted Beach’s struggle with gender identity, and subsequently provided a
notes that it was after being exposed to this gender identity, “that’s when [he] realised [he] was
4 18025558
transgender” (Cook, 2016). This in itself suggests the dominant gender discourse of a dualist
masculinity and femininity evident within the school and negation of gender diverse identities,
as well as conveying a lack of policy and explicit awareness. Beach further discusses
restrictive, gender nullifying language, claiming “teachers and students still referred to him as
understanding on the school’s behalf may have proved beneficial for Beach’s ability to feel
safe, and included. As such, there is an evidential exclusionary effect, and lack of structural
support and inclusion through gender policing evident within the school.
frameworks that are inherent and normalised within the schooling system. The power that is
inherent within language is evidential through Beach’s lack of knowledge of gender identity
prior to exposure by his teacher. This severe regulation of gender identity within the school
through general discussion, discourse, and policy limited potential possibilities and outcomes,
subsequently creating a difficult schooling life. Ullman (2014) argues “notable that LGBTQ
and GQ students sense of personal teacher support appears to hinge on perceived acceptance
and associated freedom of expression, as well as protection from gender and sexuality-based
harassment” (p. 441). In turn, the positive teacher habitus undeniably provided a beneficial
effect for Beach through an implied acceptance and support, however this needs to be wholly
integrated within the school as a policy. Having access to teachers, and school staff who are
gender expression and discuss the ways that gender performance is learned and socially
constructed” is a must in promoting inclusivity within the classroom and positive teacher
habitus (Ullman, 2016b, p. 11). This may represent itself in forms of pre-service teacher
5 18025558
training and a revision of content and curriculum in a manner that reframes gender diversity as
As the dominant discourse stands inclined toward cisgender privilege and heteronormativity,
there is an obvious lack of gender diverse inclusive policy within the education system. In
looking at ‘Bullying: Preventing and Responding to Student Bullying in Schools Policy’ (NSW
Department of Education and Communities, 2011) the reductive and simplistic view of gender
sexual diversity, and gender identities. There is no clear acknowledgement of gender identities
such as gender-fluid, bigender, non-gender conforming, non-binary, and agender, and sexuality
such as intersex, asexual, pansexual, and polyamorous. As such, the lack of explicit
acknowledgement of the fluidity within sexual and gender diversity, and the lack of separation
between sexuality and gender may create an archaic, reductionist viewpoint that perpetuates
the dominant discourse. Power is evidentially operating within this study to favour the
discourse of dominant social groups, operating to misgender and misrepresent minority gender
diverse groups. As such, the impact of government legislation works to further marginalise
students who don’t fit into dominant discourse. This may result in an obstruction of equitable
policies and practices within schools. Similarly, the ‘Supporting Sexual Diversity in Schools’
(Department of Education and Early Childhood Development, 2008) policy document aims to
support sexual diversity and gender diversity in schools, however refers to merely “same-sex
polyamorous. Whilst this policy document attempts to “discursively construct sexually diverse
people as valued members of the school community” (Ferfolja, 2016, p. 66), the document
cannot claim to support the sexually diverse, whilst only critically examining same-sex
6 18025558
attracted students. However, it is undeniable that the document “paves way for all government
schools [and pedagogical practices] to embrace this form of diversity” with the attempt to
develop and ensure “support and inclusiveness is reflected in codes of conduct, curriculum,
learning practices, organisation and ethos” (Ferfolja, 2016, p. 67; Department of Education and
Early Childhood Development, 2008, p. 6). Furthermore, the policy document recognises the
(Department of Education and Early Childhood Development, 2008, p. 6). This conveys an
and assisted by silence. With the growing amount of data suggesting the “high levels of
educational aspirations, and lower academic performance” (Burford, Lucassen, & Hamilton
(2017), pp. 212-3), it is necessary to improve school climate on gender identity, to promote
own personal and cultural biases, which have subsequently been challenged. Heteronormativity
and cisgender identity was presumed as the basis of my schooling, whereby ‘boys would
distract me’, and my education would prove more fruitful ‘away from distraction’. Utilising
dominant gender discourse within the classroom. An awareness and knowledge of the diversity
of gender identity would prove hugely beneficial in decreasing social marginalisation and
7 18025558
isolation of gender diverse students, particularly when applied to my key learning areas of
English and Modern History. In English, for example, the inclusion of gender diverse authors
and materials that explicitly address gender diversity issues as a key theme may prove
inclusive. This would provide a space for critical thinking, and an awareness and knowledge
diversity and power in relation to gender throughout certain historical societies and cultures
may provide an analysis to the inherent power matrix within gender. In practice this may
involve reviewing prominent historical figures in relation to their gender or sexual diversity,
or analysing the power relations within certain matrilineal societies, to challenge dominant
gender discourse.
Case studies such as Jeremy Beach (Cook, 2015), and Erik Ly (Cook, 2016), provide insight
into the medias current framing of schools struggling to meet equitable and accessible practices
for gender diverse students. It is necessary to encourage positive teacher habitus to promote an
awareness and inclusivity, as well as to provide a knowledge on the diversity of gender, outside
of the dominating dualist masculine and feminine discourse and cisgender-privilege. Utilising
relations within current gender discourse, and helps breakdown cisgendered and
heteronormative privilege within schools. Further, whilst policies such as the ‘Bullying:
Education and Communities, 2011), and ‘Supporting Sexual Diversity in Schools’ (Department
of Education and Early Childhood Development, 2008) are an attempt at paving supportive
and inclusive systems and pedagogical practices, they in many ways fall short of
acknowledging the true diversity within gender and sexuality. In turn, government legislation
and educational policy must be reviewed to be entirely inclusive, and prevent marginalisation
8 18025558
of gender diverse students. As such, a holistic acknowledgement, support, and acceptance of
diversity is paramount, to provide the opportunity for full participation within the learning
environment.
9 18025558
References
Burford, J., Lucassen, M. F. G., & Hamilton, T. (2017) Evaluating a gender diversity
Cook, H. (2015, September 7). Transgender Students: The Struggle to Fit in at School. The
struggle-to-fit-in-at-school-20150916-gjojgg.html
Cook, H. (2016, May 28). Single-sex schools in transition as transgender students gain
schools-in-transition-as-transgender-students-gain-acceptance-20160527-
gp5nkw.html
https://www.eduweb.vic.gov.au/edulibrary/public/teachlearn/student/supportsexualdiv
ersity.pdf
Ferfolja, T. (2016). Sexual diversities, policy approaches and the construction of the subject.
University Press.
Francis, B. (2010). Re/theorising gender: female masculinity and male femininity in the
10.1080/09540250903341146
10 18025558
Jones, T., Smith, E., Ward, R., Dixton, J., Hillier, L., & Mitchell, A. (2016). School
library/policies/bullying-preventing-and-responding-to-student-bullying-in-schools-
policy
Keddie, A. (2012). Gender, difference, and equity in education. In A. Ashman and J. Elkins
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uwsau/detail.action?docID=4745458
Smith, E., Jones, T. Ward, R., Dixon, J., Mitchell, A., & Hillier, L. (2014). From Blues to
Rainbows: Mental health and wellbeing of gender diverse and transgender young
people in Australia. The Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society.
files/bw0268-from-blues-to-rainbows-report-final-report.pdf?sfvrsn=2
LGBTQ students using stage–environment fit theory. Sex Education, (14)4, 430-443.
doi: 10.1080/14681811.2014.919912
Ullman, J. (2016a). Regulating ‘gender climate’: Exploring the social construction of gender
and sexuality in regional and rural Australian schools. In Ferfolja, T., Jones-Diaz, C.,
11 18025558
& Ullman, J (Eds.), Understanding sociological theory for educational practices. (pp.
Ullman, J. (2016b). Teacher positivity towards gender diversity: exploring relationships and
school outcomes for transgender and gender-diverse students. Sex Education, 1-15.
doi: 10.1080/14681811.2016.1273104
12 18025558