Diversity, Social Justice and Learning Assignment One

The discrimination and inequality faced by gender diverse students in Australian schools
have been featured more prominently on the mainstream media. “Gender diversity” refers
to individuals whose gender expressions do not match with their biological sex, or differ
from social expectation, including people who identify as agender, bigender, non-binary,
genderqueer, as well as transgender and transsexual (Smith et al., 2014; Robinson, Bansel,
Denson, Ovenden, & Davies, 2013). Cisgender refers to “a person’s gender identity matches
social expectations given their sex assigned at birth” (Smith et al., 2014, p. 6). In schools,
gender diverse students often experience alienation as a result of their gender identities,
which has serious impacts on their wellbeing and schooling experience. Other than being
subject to bullying perpetrated by peers and lack of support from teachers, gender diverse
youth are greatly affected by educational policies that reinforce the marginalization against
them. Using social constructionism theory and the concept of discourse, this essay examines
the ways that peer aggression, teaching practices, and educational policies constitute the
dominant cisgendered privileged discourse, and contribute to the alienation of gender
diverse students.

Gender diverse student alienation occur as a result of the school environment that
privileges cisgender identity. Young people’s perception of gender is partially formed in
classrooms and school-based interactions since early years. However, as institutions, schools
privilege those who conform to normative gender expressions and marginalized those who
don’t, which creates an alienating school climate that put gender diverse students in a
vulnerable position. (Payne & Smith, 2012) A 2014 research study found that, although
gender diverse youth are subject to discrimination across different aspects of their lives,
schools are the sites where homophobia and transphobia are the most prevalent (Robinson
et al., 2014). Compared to cisgender same-sex attracted young people, gender diverse youth
are more likely to be rejected by school staff from their identity disclosure, and more likely
to experience physical assaults (Jones & Hillier, 2013). They are exposed to different forms
of bullying by their peers, such as verbal and physical abuse, rumors, graffiti, and humiliation
(Ullman, 2015b). However, teachers’ response to homophobic and transphobic behaviors
are often inconsistent, with the majority fail to address the discrimination and offer support,
which reinforces an alienating school environment. (Ullman, 2015a). Aside from being
socially isolated, gender diverse students are systematically marginalized, as school policies
fail to acknowledge and accommodate their needs. For example, gendered uniform policies
unable them to wear uniforms that reflect their gender identities (Robinson et al., 2014);
gender-segregated facilities (such as toilets and change rooms), and activities (such as lining
up in rows of boys and girls) encourage individuals to remain silent about their gender
identities (Jones et al., 2016). Fear of being bullied, lack of support from teachers and staff,
low sense of belonging to schools all lead to feelings of alienation, which could have serious
impact on the schooling experience of gender diverse youth. Evidence shows that there is a
strong correlation between school-based marginalization and lack of concentration in class,
low academic achievement, and attendance issue such as missing classes or moving schools,
and dropping out of school altogether (Jones & Hillier 2013; Ullman 2015b).

Social constructionism can be used as a lens to examine the systematic marginalization

within schools, which limits the space and opportunities for gender diverse youth. The social
construction of gender refers to the argument that gender is constructed upon context
within which it is created, and it is shaped by discourse (Bohan, 1993). Therefore, our
perception of appropriate gender expression is influenced by different contextual factors
such as culture, religions, and location (Ullman, 2015b). The dominant gender discourse
creates the idea that men and women are two intrinsically different groups of people
(Ullman, 2015b), having different gender expressions and playing different roles. In the
school context, this discourse lead to the assumption that ‘’all students fit into dichotomous
classifications of gender, that is, to be either a boy or a girl’’ (Rands, 2009, p.424). As a
result, school policies and teaching practices often neglect the needs of gender diverse
students. For example, in PDHPE, activities are often split into boys and girls (Jones et al.,
2016); and students are assigned sports that traditionally associated with their sex, without
taking students’ interests into consideration (Robinson et al., 2014).

In addition, as the dominant gender discourse is constructed upon hegemonic norms of

gender, individuals who do not conform to these norms are seen as problematic (Jones &
Hillier, 2013). This creates a cisgender/gender diverse power imbalance. In schools,
cisgender identities are perceived as naturally superior (Ullman & Ferfolja, 2016), and
students identifying as cisgender are given power to police their gender-non-conforming
peers (Payne & Smith, 2012). They exercise their power by verbally abusing gender diverse
students, giving them labels that put them in lower social positions (Ullman, 2015b). For
example, as Ullman (2015b) states, words like “faggot” is positioned as “lesser, socially
distained and always in opposition to a hegemonic masculine exemplar” (p.80). It is
important to point out that the use of homophobic and transphobic language is reflective of
the dominant gender perceptions (Payne & Smith, 2012). Students did not come up with
words like “faggot” and “tranny” (Smith et al., 2014, p.56); they learn the use of these words
from their family, friends, the media, and many other sources. However, current anti-
bullying teaching practices and policies often focus on the behaviors of individuals, without
looking into the heteronormative school climate (Payne & Smith, 2012). As a result, the
efforts to create a safe and supportive environment for gender diverse youth are often
ineffective.

Teachers play a crucial role in reducing student alienation. However, as it has been
mentioned in the sections above, teachers in Australia are struggling to offer support for
gender diverse youth. Influenced by an essentialist view of gender, many teachers are not
aware of the complexity of gender identities. As a result, they fail to provide an equitable
teaching and learning environment for gender diverse youth. Research have found that a lot
of teachers use inappropriate language (pronounce, name and identity) when
communicating with gender nonconforming students (Jones et al., 2016). For instance, in
the school that Bailey attended, teachers called him a girl or used phrases like ‘’good girl’’,
even though he identified and expressed as a male (Smith et al., 2014, p.58). The social
construction of gender operates via discourse (Ullman, 2015b). Foucault discussed that the
concept of discourse is not just about what can be said, but also who has the authority to
speak and when (as cited in Ferfolja, Díaz, & Ullman, 2015). Between teachers and students,
teaches are traditionally perceived to be in a position of power, which give them the
authority to influence students’ knowledge and understanding of the reality. Hence, when
addressing the topic of gender, teachers need to be cautious of the language that they use.
As for gender diverse students, that language have the power to potentially ‘’affirm’’ or
‘’belittle’’ their existence in the classrooms (Kearns, Mitton-Kükner, & Tompkins, 2017,
p.12).
Scholars and teacher educators have suggested different strategies that teachers can use to
reduce the marginalization of gender diverse students in their daily practices. Firstly, when
teaching subject content, teachers can question the dominant narratives of gender to help
youth think critically about gender and identity (Kearns, Mitton-Kükner, & Tompkins, 2017).
For example, in English classes, when analyzing classic literature and films such as The Little
Mermaid, teachers can challenge students’ knowledge of cisgender norms by asking
questions like ‘Why do you think all characters are portrayed as either male or female?’.
Secondly, teachers lack trainings that give them guidance on how to address homophobia
and transphobia. Evidence shows that when incidents of verbal or physical abuse against
gender nonconforming youth occur, teachers often acknowledge the aggressive behaviors,
but they don’t investigate the courses or educate around the incidents (Ullman, 2015a).
Thus, teachers should actively engage in professional development regarding issues around
gender. It is worth noting that, though teachers’ efforts to prevent marginalization in their
classrooms are important, these is a power imbalance between teachers and the education
system. What teachers can and cannot do are affected by educational policies.

In New South Wales, there is an absence of departmental policy specific to the issue of
gender diversity in schools. The documentation that relates most closely to this issue is the
‘’Transgender students in schools - legal rights and responsibilities’’ bulletin issued in 2014
(NSW Department of Education, 2014). The document highlights that transgender students
have equal rights to access a safe learning environment and to be treated with dignity (NSW
Department of Education, 2014). It attempts to resolve problems such as name used and
recorded at schools, uniforms, toilets and change rooms facilities, and how schools can
support students undergoing transitions (NSW Department of Education, 2014). Though this
is a step forward in building a more inclusive environment for transgender students, there
are a few problems with the document. Firstly, the subject of the document is transgender
students, which fails to include a broad range of gender identities. Secondly, the strategies
provided could be ineffective, as it allows schools to “maintain a reactionary position”
(Payne & Smith, 2012, p.191). Many schools are influenced by the dominant
heteronormative discourse; hence, it could be difficult for transgender students to hold
schools accountable for implementing these strategies. Lastly, the language used to
describe gender diversity is problematic. Ferfolja (2015) considers that because
“subjectivity” is constituted in discourse by what is written about them, policy frameworks
and resources are crucial in the representation of the “subjects” (p. 106). The “Transgender
students in schools – legal rights and responsibilities” bulletin refers to cisgendered
individuals as “most people”, and transgender individuals as “some people” (NSW
Department of Education, 2014). This “most people” versus “some people” writing is
reflective of the dominant discourse, which sees cisgender identity as the norm, and gender
diversity as the deviant. In return, as this bulletin was issued by an educational institution
who has authority and is in a position of power, it reinforces the marginalisation against
gender diverse youth. Scholars have suggested that in order to resolve alienation, policies
should explicitly outline the responsibilities that institutions have regarding building an
equitable education experience for gender nonconforming students (Ullman, 2015a); also,
policies need to acknowledge and address the heteronormative school climate, and how
schools can change this climate by proving teachers with trainings on topics around gender
identities (Payne & Smith, 2012).

In conclusion, this essay examines how the dominant gender discourse impact alienation
experienced by gender diverse students. The essay starts by looking at the cause of
alienation through the lens of social constructionism. It points out that alienation occurs as a
result of social exclusion and systematic marginalisation in a school environment that
shaped by dominant heteronormative discourse. Using the concept of discourse, the section
followed discusses how teachers have the authority and power to educate and challenge
students’ understanding of gender norms, and teachers should adjust teaching pedagogies
and seek professional development to create an inclusive learning environment for gender
diverse youth. Lastly, the essay analyses the limitations of the “Transgender students in
schools – legal rights and Responsibilities” bulletin (NSW Department of Education, 2014),
and how the language used the document reflect and in turn reinforce dominant gender
discourse. It concludes by suggesting that in order to reduce the exclusion and
marginalisation against gender diverse students, policies should clarify institutional
responsibilities and acknowledge the influence of rigid gender expectation on students,
teachers, and schools.
Reference List
Bohan, J.s. (1993). Regarding Gender: Essentialism, Constructionism, and Feminist.
Psychology. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 17, 5-21 doi:10.1111/j.1471-
6402.1993.tb00673.x

Ferfolja, T. (2015). Sexual diversities, policy approaches and the construction of the subject.
In T. Ferfolja, C.J. Díaz, & J. Ullman (EDS.), Understanding Sociological Theory for Educational
Practices (1st ed., 24- 49). Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.

Ferfolja, T., Díaz, C.J., & Ullman, J. (2015). The unseen half: Theories for educational ..
practices. In T. Ferfolja, C.J. Díaz, & J. Ullman (EDS.), Understanding Sociological Theory for
Educational Practices (1st ed., 101- 123). Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.

Jones, T. & Hillier, L. (2013). Comparing Trans-Spectrum and Same- sex-Attracted Youth in
Australia: Increased Risks, Increased Activisms, Journal of LGBT Youth, 10(4), 287-307.doi:
10.1080/19361653.2013.825197

Jones, T., Smith, E., Ward, R., Dixon, J., Hillier, L. & Mitchell, A. (2016). School experiences of
transgender and gender diverse students in Australia. Sex Education, 16(2), 156-171.doi:
10.1080/14681811.2015.1080678

Kearns, L., Mitton-Kükner, J. & Tompkins, J. (2017). Transphobia and Cisgender Privilege:
Pre-Service Teachers Recognizing and Challenging Gender Rigidity in Schools. Canadian
Journal of Education, 40(1). Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1136162

NSW Department of Education. Transgender students in schools – legal rights and

Responsibilities. Retrieved from https://education.nsw.gov.au/about-us/rights-and-
accountability/media/documents/public-legal-issues-bulletins/LIB-55-Transgender-students-
in-schools-legal-rights-and-responsibilities.pdf

Payne, E. & Smith, M. (2012). Rethinking safe schools approaches for LGBTQ students:
changing the questions we ask, Multicultural Perspectives, 14(4), 187-93.doi:
10.1080/15210960.2012.725293

Rands, K. E. (2009). Considering Transgender People in Education: A Gender-Complex .

Approach. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(4), 419–431. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487109341475

Robinson, K.H., Bansel, P., Denson, N., Ovenden, G. & Davies, C. (2013), Growing Up Queer:
Issues Facing Young Australians Who Are Gender Variant and Sexuality Diverse, Melbourne:
Young and Well Cooperative Research Centre. Retrieved from
https://www.glhv.org.au/sites/default/files/Growing_Up_Queer2014.pdf

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. Melbourne: The Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health, and Society. Retrieved
from https://www.beyondblue.org.au/docs/default-source/research-project-files/bw0268-
from-blues-to-rainbows-report-final-report.pdf?sfvrsn=2

Ullman, J. (2015a). Free to Be?: Exploring the schooling experiences of Australia’s sexuality
and gender diverse secondary school students. Sydney: Centre for Educational Research,
School of Education, Western Sydney University, Penrith. doi: 10.4225/35/5aa0636045a3a

Ullman, J. (2015b).Regulating ‘gender climate’: Exploring the social construction of gender

and sexuality in regional and rural Australian schools. In T. Ferfolja, C.J. Díaz, & J. Ullman
(EDS.), Understanding Sociological Theory for Educational Practices (1st ed., 73- 100).
Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.

Ullman, J., & Ferfolja, T. (2016). The Elephant in the (Class)Room: Parental Perceptions of
LGBTQ-inclusivity in K-12 Educational Contexts. Australian Journal of Teacher Education,
41(10). doi: 10.14221/ajte.2016v41n10.2