48 Gender Studies is Fundamental to Adolescent Development

Keywords: Education, Youth, Mental Health, 2SLGBTQIA+

Parents, students, and educators alike imagine that we all emerge from our high school education with a diploma in one hand, and the knowledge to equip us for life beyond in the other. This is hardly the case. Students’ academic outcomes rely heavily on the content taught in school, the context in which it is taught, and most importantly their social relations with faculty and fellow peers. School becomes a place not only to gain knowledge but to acquire enriched and foundational life experiences, develop emotional and cognitive skills, and create positive and friendly environments for learning. However, the inverse can also be found within these structures, through marginalized students who feel exclusion strategies working against them. Educators and general faculty have the dire ability to “both reinforce a sense of exclusion or inclusion” in these marginalized youth, “by choosing to (re)act, or not, on questionable behaviour among the students” (Cederved 2021:para. 25). In this essay, research will be conducted through a sociological perspective to outline the importance of integrating gender studies into secondary school curriculum through the expansion of pedagogies, concerning the betterment of 2SLGBTQIA+ youth experiences, educational development, and life trajectories. Firstly, I will expand on foundational background knowledge regarding gender studies and pedagogies, then move forth to examine these marginalized youths’ experiences and why they are at such risk. To follow I will explain the importance of educators and educational system supports, along with integration tactics to include gender studies in school curricula.

To begin, let us first answer the question of what gender studies are, and then specify its use in the context of this essay. Gender studies are viewed as an interdisciplinary field within the social sciences, that studies gender and sexuality in a broad range of areas. Gender can be broadly defined as “a scientific category that reflects the characteristics of relations between men and women as socially organized groups, distinguished from the biological determinant of their socialization” (Rykov 2003: 55). The term gender was first adopted in the scientific literature by an American researcher Joan Scott to “make a distinction between the biological and the social meanings of the role relations of men and women” in a society (Rykov 2003: 55). This meaning of the term gender lies within the idea that it is socially modelled, and represented in various situations and interactions within everyday life. Social constructionism is a branch of social theory formulated by conflict and feminist theorists. It inquires about the treatment of gender as a socially construed form of inequality based on sex and intersectional lines such as race, class, ability, and sexuality. Those unfamiliar with gender studies often associate it with women’s or feminist studies. However, while many parallels are drawn, gender studies are not based on women but rather on the entire gender spectrum and the social relations between gender and society. It has “the aim of exploring and promoting anti-oppressive/social justice education to theorize and deconstruct social relations of power” (Kannen 2014:para. 2). Gender is the object of analysis, but to understand its interconnectedness to social behaviours and social systems is to study gender. Moving forward I encourage keeping the idea of gender and sexuality as central to gender studies, with the core tenet of promoting social change in the foreground of your mind. The usage of this (possibly newfound) awareness of gender will aid in acknowledging and understanding 2SLGBTQIA+ youth narratives.

To provide further insight, the defining and understanding of pedagogy is to follow. In the simplest of terms, pedagogy can be understood as “the art or science of teaching children,” otherwise known as a synonym for “teaching” or “education” (Anon. 2021:para. 1). Pedagogies are created on a macro-level, initially by philosophers and educators through designing pedagogical approaches with theories and proposed practices. They are then applied at a micro-level as educators create their pedagogies through learning said theories, developing techniques, and today incorporating new technologies (Anon. 2021). While classrooms are academic environments, they are also open to interpretation. This can be illustrated by the vast number of pedagogies in practice such as critical pedagogies, feminist decolonial pedagogies, and antiracist pedagogies, to name a few. Pedagogies are all similar in theory but are all diverse when exercised. This can be problematic as systemic issues and cultural/societal norms such as heteronormativity and cisnormativity have the potential to trickle down from one generation to the next. We can deduce from modern-day life experiences that this is precisely the case. It is believed that “school education introduces into the minds of the students a particular gender code using which the gender identity and the gender role of the individual are construed” (Rykov 2003: 58). Now onto the practice of critical feminist pedagogies, where critical and feminist pedagogy collide. “Critical pedagogy is traditionally defined as educational theory and teaching/learning practices designed to raise learners’ critical consciousness regarding oppressive social conditions” (Anon. 2021:para. 4). On the other hand, feminist pedagogy promotes “forms of social justice such as sensitivity to differences, anti-oppressive teaching, and inclusive education” (Kannen 2014:para. 12). Educators versed in this collective pedagogy believe “school classes are oriented toward reinforcing traditional sex roles” (Rykov 2003: 58). Therefore, gender study classrooms taught through critical feminist pedagogy, are a particularly rich setting to study in. They have the “potential to be personally, pedagogically, and socially transformative” (Kannen 2014:para. 5).

Gendered Harassment and Policing in Secondary School

To understand the educational and societal climate that 2SLGBTQIA+ youth are exposed to let us examine their experiences in ‘secondary’ schools through a sociological lens. The emphasis is on secondary because the age range in question varies. There is not a firm hold on the North American high school age range within the research literature, therefore the scope has been expanded to include individuals aged 11-19. In the context of this paper, the use of “secondary,” “adolescents,” and “youths” will refer to this cohort. The age of youth beginning to develop and/or question their gender and identity, and the age of coming out has lowered over time; it is “suggested to occur at the age of 14” (Cederved 2021:para. 2). When considering the most pervasive descriptions brought forth by marginalized youth, we are faced with accounts of bullying, cyberbullying, discrimination, and escalated hostile behaviours. These descriptions not only include accounts from peers, but also “within the school environment from the curriculum, space, peers and teachers” (Bower-Brown 2021:para. 1). These forms of victimization include risks of “anxiety/depression, suicide, and elevated risk of substance use” (Vilkin 2020:para. 6). According to a study done by the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), consisting of more than “6,000 sexual minority high school students, 86% reported being verbally harassed at school within the past year, 44% reported being physically harassed, and 22% reported being physically assaulted” (Heck 2013: 82). These can be seen as forms of gender policing which is the act of imposing traditional heterosexual gender norms upon those expressing gender non-conformity. School settings have been highlighted as the place where “gender-diverse adolescents face the most discrimination, given the prominence of the gender binary throughout the school day (e.g. uniforms, toilets, changing rooms, sport), and the large proportion of time that adolescents spend at school” (Bower-Brown 2021:para. 1). Students are often left feeling alienated, and othered, feel a sense of exclusion and face a lack of support in these environments. This inevitably creates situations in which they are less integrated into their learning and education. While this impacts their educational outcomes, there are also substantial tolls on their mental well-being and physical health. Studies have shown that these impacts can be related to “lower levels of school belonging, feeling unsafe at school, poorer academic performance, more substance use, and more depressive symptomatology” (Heck 2013: 82). The experiences of these adolescents are expansive and mutually inclusive. With 2SLGBTQIA+ youth making up a sizeable demographic in secondary school populations, this should not be such a collectively held narrative.

We can begin to analyze the community’s marginalization and why they are the most at risk for victimization in schools and social settings. Primarily, these outcomes are directly related to the breaking of social norms. Heteronormativity and cisnormativity take shape through youth voicing their gender identities and displaying their gender expressions. Heteronormativity is the concept that heterosexuality is the normal or default mode of everyone’s sexual orientation, while cisnormativity is the assumption that all human beings are cisgender. Thus, cisgender individuals identify with the gender they were assigned at birth. Both ideas are culturally engrained within our Western societies. These norms have restrictive boundaries, consequently people who dare to break free from their binary boxes are subjected to gender policing as a result. There is a saying that goes along the lines of people fear what they do not or cannot understand. This is precisely the issue these youth are facing from peers and institutional systems upholding and conforming to societal norms. Therefore, the 2SLGBTQIA+ community is marginalized due to being seen as deviant beings, not conforming, and going against said social norms. They are subject to a process known as social typing; the act of labelling, being judged and treated negatively in response. This is a mechanism of social control, which is often followed by actions such as but not limited to bullying and harassment behaviours, and formal mechanisms like laws and policies. The effect ultimately creates the marginalization of this community. Relating to the GLSEN, another study was conducted with a sample of 1,580 public school principals, in which “95% of principals reported that students are harassed based upon gender expression, and 92% reported harassment based upon sexual orientation” (Heck 2013: 82). These practices and forms of social control are far more widespread than simply adolescent settings and experiences. Throughout society and various demographics, these social norms are held and acted upon through views of homophobia, and transphobia. Homophobia and transphobia then intersect with many facets such as racism, sexism, and ableism. Such an analysis, while important, falls outside the scope of this paper. But the acknowledgement that “students encounter ideas about gender and sexual politics via public culture” (Craven 2019:para. 18) is prevalent and key.

Moreover, there is a lack of anti-bullying policy and teacher/faculty support within educational systems, subsequently at-school victimization disproportionally impacts LGBT youth (Heck 2013). This is not a revelation as schooling and education are but one of many institutionalized areas in which societal norms are upheld. Therefore, our current students are being taught by past students who were educated to conform and lacked areas of discipline enriched by gender studies in their post-secondary educations. This embeds hetero-cis-normativity into their pedagogies and often values, beliefs, and ways of thinking or acting. Concerning the GLSEN study, “approximately 30% of principals reported that their teachers were either “fair” or “poor” at being able to address the bullying of sexual minority students” (Heck 2013: 82). Due to this, “students have reported that teachers ignore their pleas for help, appear indifferent to threats made toward trans youth, and rarely intervene in harassment” (Case 2014:para. 5). After these youth bear witness to adults’ “unjust or nonchalant treatment of students, the adolescents stop asking for help”, considering the teachers to be “ignorant or uninterested” in them and their needs (Cederved 2021:para. 26). Shunning practices on account of gender expression, mannerisms, actions, and pronoun usage are also reported on behalf of teachers and school personnel (Cederved 2021). To lessen the victimization of these youth, there is a dire need to address these harmful practices to enact safety within school environments.

Making Things Better for 2SLGBTQIA+ Youth

The previously stated experiences and effects illuminate the importance of teacher allyship, and the relevant training needed within our educational system to provide better support for marginalized youth. The repercussions of educators, counsellors, and general school personnel’s lack of knowledge are highlighted throughout. They are consistent within most of the literature, and research reviewed in preparation for this essay. Of the utmost importance is how negligent behaviours affect these youth regarding development and life goals. It is found that these students encounter decreased levels of academic achievement resulting in lower GPAs, as well as lower levels of self-esteem and life satisfaction. This may lead to stunting of social skill development. The concern of sex education in schools is a whole issue on its own. However, due to insufficient, exclusive, and often binary-gendered teachings, these students are delayed in understanding their identity leaving them to search for information alone outside the school context. Having a “lack of supportive networks and role models they could identify with risks enhancing the vulnerability and sense of alienation and isolation in LGBTQ adolescents” (Cederved 2021:para. 46). As a result “lack of teacher support increases the likelihood of gender-diverse students leaving school” (Bower-Brown 2021:para. 3), transferring schools, and fewer plans for post-secondary attainment.

Thankfully more workshops, training, and educational seminars are being held to provide counsellors, educators, and school personnel the ability to advocate and actively participate in the betterment of 2SLGBTQIA+ youth experiences. By becoming allies, “counsellors and educators can improve transgender students’ safety within the school environment, which can lead to increased academic achievement and higher quality of life among these youth” (Case 2014:para. 7). In Case’s (2014) study conducted in the United States, a workshop was held for a wide array of adults within the school system who were interested in expanding their knowledge. They were met with roundtable discussions, panels of experts, and presentations. One of the main pedagogical goals of the workshop was to provide opportunities for educators and counsellors to practice real-world ally responses relevant to their roles in the schools. Approximately, “93% of participants report they acquired new knowledge or skills as a result of attending”, and “plan to share resources, workshop handouts, and ideas generated during the sessions with colleagues and direct supervisors when they return to their schools or counselling settings” (Case 2014:para. 36). Through this study alone, we can see how transformative and essential professional development training can be. However, this is only one instance, and more emphasis is needed on encouraging educators around the world to expand their scope of knowledge. Personal attitudes and efforts make a difference in terms of an adolescent’s experiences of inclusion or exclusion. A lack of understanding and non-inclusive pedagogy shapes adolescents’ beliefs (Case 2014), and to instil initiatives for change, they must come from within the confines of their education.

To begin integrating gender studies into secondary school curricula, the starting point must be an all-encompassing pedagogical shift. This could be accomplished by the previously stated practices, by educators pursuing relevant training; “educators must develop an explicit gender consciousness before they can deliver a gender-conscious pedagogy” (Warin 2017:para. 1). Another route proposed within research is to advance early childhood education, undergraduate and master level degrees to effectively educate future teachers and instructors. This would be a preventative approach. Regardless of the direction taken, there needs to be explicit teacher training and continuation of professional development if we want to disrupt the current gender norms and pitfalls adolescents face in secondary schools. If educators learned new theories on gender, they could begin to re-establish their pedagogy towards more critical feminist pedagogy practices and models. Only once they are self-aware, teachers can bring about self-awareness in their students; “critical reflexivity on the part of teachers about their pedagogical practice could help raise awareness amongst students to question dominant gender ideologies” (Himabindu 2019:para. 2). Paired with this would be a fundamental restructuring of the school environment to support 2SLGBTQIA+ youth. This could potentially involve more inclusive and progressive anti-bullying school policies, followed by training teachers to recognize and intervene when students are engaging in discriminatory behaviours. Accompanying this could be mandatory course material integration to include in-depth and conscientious lessons on gender, gender expression, sexual orientations, sex education, and intersectional identities to better conceptualize diversity, and to instil anti-oppressive teaching, and inclusive education. Internal programs, clubs, and affinity groups such as Gay-Straight Alliance (GSA) also have an important place at the table in terms of bettering school environments and improving academic performances. By making these changes and “constructing an environment in which discriminatory behaviour is discouraged, and gender fluidity and flexibility are supported, schools and educators can support gender-diverse adolescents. This can reduce both the level and effect of discrimination” (Bower-Brown 2021:para. 48).

Admittedly, some would argue that gender studies should have no place within our school curriculums. This perspective is reoccurring and often stems from parents/guardians’ opposition to the content taught within the discipline. Parental figures have a strong impact and role in the education of their children, through beliefs and values taught at home, or the public and private institutions they enrol their children in. These opposing views cause disruptions within the educational system, inevitably influencing personal pedagogical practices and disrupting the enactment of school policies and/or programs. We can infer from the long tradition of Parental Advisory Committees (PACs) that parents want to actively participate in their children’s education. Many believe they have a right in determining educational goals and values. There is a common narrative that since parents are the taxpayers funding our schools, they have the right to provide input and have full transparency of course curricula. When schools begin to introduce gender studies practices, parental figures do not want their children to be influenced by conflicting views that go against their family beliefs, values, morals, etc. It is important to acknowledge the validity of their position and concerns, as most often parents want what they think is best for their children’s development. Given their unfamiliarity with the subject and content, it is understandable to have doubts and concerns. Incorporating these studies is inherently breaking down instilled social norms that live within us all. Change can be intimidating, but without change, there is no progression.

Despite the opposition’s position, it is important to shed light on the fact that many 2SLGBTQIA+ youths have negative experiences within their family dynamics. There is often a lack of safety or security felt by these youth, stemming from the deviation from familial ideals and norms. One qualitative research study reviewed stated that “within the Swedish context, every fifth person in the group of 16 to 25-year-old individuals who are homosexual or bisexual reports experiences of physical abuse by a parent, partner, or another close adult; a figure that was twice as big as compared with non-homosexual or bisexual persons in the same age group” (Cederved 2021:para. 4). A lack of parental support towards gender diverse youth has also been associated with negative outcomes such as “shocking levels of homelessness or under housing, physical and mental health problems, fewer indicators of hopefulness for the future, and suicidal ideation and attempts” (Anon. n.d.:para. 3). Due to this, there is a need for government-protected safe spaces such as schools, for youth to learn, share, and find belonging through peer support and diverse knowledge. This is where the Human Rights Code Amendment Act comes in; “As of 2017, gender identity or gender expression has been explicitly codified in all human rights legislation at the provincial, territorial, and federal level”, in Canada (Anon. n.d.:para. 1). This means that the inclusion of gender identities and gender expression is among the protected grounds the code covers. The code includes, but is not limited to, “The rights of children and youth with respect to sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression (SOGIE) apply to Canadian children and youth in a wide range of areas including sexual health education access to services, education (including gay-straight alliances, choice of companions at school events, and SOGIE inclusive curricula)” (Anon. n.d.:para. 2). It must be conveyed that this act and the educational system are not attempting to undermine parental figures, but to provide their children with an all-encompassing bountiful education, to aid in their critical thinking skills and their overall development. By providing a space and the right to pursue their educational desires, all youth have the opportunity to exercise their freedoms and follow their own will.

Concluding Thoughts

To conclude, incorporating gender studies in secondary school classroom curriculum through a comprehensive pedagogical framework would create, and cultivate better 2SLGBTQIA+ youth experiences. This would contribute to the greater potential within their education and towards future endeavours. By understanding and empathizing with these marginalized adolescents, we and most importantly those within the educational system can actively show allyship. This can provide informed intentional support to better care for these youth’s needs. This outcome would also aid in the betterment of all students’ experiences by instilling better-shared understandings, advocating for acceptance, and providing perspective for individuals’ worldviews. By universally and regularly teaching gender studies, secondary school curricula could hold the potential to break down the heteropatriarchy and negative societal structures society is built upon early on in our lives. This would allow youth to grow into well-informed and better-equipped adults. The first step towards putting these practices into fruition would be for educators and institutions to acknowledge that this issue exists and is a prevalent one at that.

Bibliography

Anon. 2021. “Pedagogy.” New World Encyclopedia. Retrieved November 10, 2022 (https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Pedagogy).

Anon. n.d. “Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Gender Expression.” The Canadian Bar Association. Retrieved November 10, 2022 (https://www.cba.org/Publications-Resources/Practice-Tools/Child-Rights-Toolkit/theChild/Sexual-Orientation-Gender-Identity-and-Gender-Expr).

Bower-Brown, Susie, Sophie Zadeh & Vasanti Jadva. 2021. “Binary-trans, non-binary and gender-questioning adolescents’ experiences in UK schools.” Journal of LGBT

Youth, DOI: 10.1080/19361653.2021.1873215

Case, Kim A., & Colt St Amand. 2014. “Developing Allies to Transgender and Gender-Nonconforming Youth: Training for Counselors and Educators.” Journal of LGBT Youth, 11:1, 62-82, DOI: 10.1080/19361653.2014.840764

Cederved, C., Glasdam, S., & Stjernswärd, S. 2021. “A Clash of Sexual Gender Norms and Understandings: A Qualitative Study of Homosexual, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Adolescents’ Experiences in Junior High Schools.” Journal of Adolescent Research. https://doiorg.ezproxy.viu.ca/10.1177/07435584211043290

Craven, S. 2019. “Intersectionality and Identity: Critical Considerations in Teaching Introduction to Women’s and Gender Studies”. Frontiers, 40(1), 200-228.

Heck, Nicholas C., Annesa Flentje, & Bryan N. Cochran. 2013. “Offsetting Risks: High School Gay-Straight Alliances and Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Youth.” Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity 1(S): 81-90, DOI: 10.1037/2329-0382.1.S.81

Himabindu, Timiri & Roozbeh Shirazi. 2019. “Legitimate subjects: diverse pedagogical practices and gendered subjectivities in high school classrooms.” Journal Of Gender Studies 28(2): 171-184.

Kannen, Victoria. 2014. “These are not ‘regular places’: women and gender studies classrooms as heterotopias” Gender, Place & Culture 21:1, 52-67, DOI: 10.1080/0966369X.2012.759910

Rykov, S.L. 2003. “Gender Studies in Pedagogy.” Russian Education and Society 45(8):54-64, DOI: 10.2753/RES1060-9393450854

Vilkin, Ellora, Leslie Einhorn, Satyanand Satyanarayana, Ammo Eisu, Katrina Kimport & Annesa Elentje. 2020. “Elementary Students’ Gender Beliefs and Attitudes Following a 12-Week Arts Curriculum Focused on Gender.” Journal of LGBT Youth, 17:1, 70-88, DOI: 10.1080/19361653.2019.1613282

Warin, Jo, & Vina Adriany. 2017. “Gender flexible pedagogy in early childhood education.”Journal Of Gender Studies 26(4):375-386.