SCHOOL OF Education

ASSIGNMENT COVER SHEET

STUDENT DETAILS

Student name: Owen Gates Student ID number: 18354629

UNIT AND TUTORIAL DETAILS

Unit name: Diversity, Social Justice and Learning Unit number: 102083
Tutorial group: Tutorial day and time: Wednesday 2:30
Lecturer or Tutor name: Dr Erika Smith

ASSIGNMENT DETAILS

Title: A problem of discourse: Gender diverse student alienation

Length: 1910 words Due date: 5/4/19 Date submitted: 5/4/19
Home campus (where you are enrolled): Kingswood

DECLARATION

I hold a copy of this assignment if the original is lost or damaged.

I hereby certify that no part of this assignment or product has been copied from any other student’s work or from
any other source except where due acknowledgement is made in the assignment.
I hereby certify that no part of this assignment or product has been submitted by me in another (previous or
current) assessment, except where appropriately referenced, and with prior permission from the Lecturer /
Tutor / Unit Coordinator for this unit.
No part of the assignment/product has been written/produced for me by any other person except where
collaboration has been authorised by the Lecturer / Tutor /Unit Coordinator concerned.
I am aware that this work will be reproduced and submitted to plagiarism detection software programs for the
purpose of detecting possible plagiarism (which may retain a copy on its database for future plagiarism
checking).

Student’s signature: Owen Gates

Note: An examiner or lecturer / tutor has the right to not mark this assignment if the above declaration has not been
signed.
 A issue of discourse: Gender diverse student alienation

Gender diverse students are routinely alienated and receive inequitable treatment across all
schools in Australia resulting in significantly lowered outcomes (Hillier et al., 2010). The
majority of the population is cis-gender, that is their gender identity is consistent with their
sex assigned at birth. Gender diverse on the other hand refers to all individuals with gender
identities that do not adhere to the socially predominant gender binary of male and female
at all, for example: Trans*, genderfluid, bigender or agender (Hillier et al., 2010; Ullman,
2015). Alienation of these gender diverse students occurs in a variety of ways not limited to
direct physical or verbal bullying, and results from dominant social discourses which either
exclude understanding of gender diverse student existence or perceive gender diverse
students as deviants from the accepted heteronormative ideal (Ferfolja, Jones-Diaz &
Ullman, 2018; Foucault, 1971). This state of isolation has been improving over time due to
increased awareness in public and political discourses as well as the growth of LGBTQ
accepting counter discourses, however institutional power manifests policies that derive
from and feed into the dominant discourse of gender diverse exclusion (Hillier et al., 2010;
Jones et al., 2015; Ullman, 2015). This shortcoming in discursive shifts necessitates
investigation of gender diverse student isolation as a result of discourse; how discourses
lend power to and are powered by society; policy’s role in addressing inequitable
discourses; and the ways in which teachers can contribute. Feminist constructivism provides
a useful lens through which to analyse why gender diverse students suffer under structures
that favour cis-gendered and binary norms in our schools.

Almost all gender diverse students experience isolation as a direct result of their gender
identity being inconsistent with the socially constructed norm (Butler, 1988; Hillier et al.,
2010; Jones et al., 2015; Ullman, 2015). Whilst they do suffer increased physical and verbal
abuse compared to the heteronormative population, alienation primarily results from the
social discourses present in their school and wider community. Relatively few Trans*
students change their name on school records, and social transitioning for gender diverse
students often occurs outside of school, with the majority of gender diverse students not
being “out” during their school lives, instead choosing to be socially camouflaged (Hillier et
al., 2010; Jones et al., 2015; Ullman, 2015). Despite being hidden and hence not necessarily
targets of direct abuse to adhere to the discursive hetero-norm, these students feel isolated
from their peers and schools as a whole whilst they attempt accept themselves in the face
of discourses that consider them socially unacceptable (Ferfolja, Jones-Diaz & Ullman,
2018). Many expressed isolation was compounded by constant gender segregation that
forced students to undertake activities and sports, wear uniforms and use toilets in line with
genders other than own (Hillier et al., 2010; Ullman, 2015). For students in entirely gender
segregated schooling this sense of isolation was particularly strong (Hillier et al., 2010; Jones
et al., 2015)
Gender diverse students are unable to express themselves in a manner that is consistent
with their identity for fear they will receive social punishment, yet they still suffer unfairly
on the account of the dominant discourse that promotes division according to the
heterosexual binary.
According to feminist constructivism, the dominant discourse of the heterosexual binary
relies upon excluding gender diverse students to maintain its coherency and hence power
(Butler, 1988; Ferfolja, Jones-Diaz & Ullman, 2018; Foucault, 1971). Built on the perception
that genders are biologically determined and anything outside of this norm is abhorrent or
unnatural, heterosexual essentialism led to homosexual and gender diverse individuals
being considered mentally ill (Ferfolja, Jones-Diaz & Ullman, 2018; Jones et al., 2015).
For students who do actively perform their gender identity against the dominant norm
violence and verbal abuse ensues (Hillier et al., 2010; Ullman, 2015). This can be understood
as the attempt of the dominant gender discourse to protect its interests, particularly the
power afforded by hegemonic masculinity whereby all other expressions of identity that
deviate from the masculine ideal are treated as lesser (Butler, 1988; Ferfolja, Jones-Diaz &
Ullman, 2018; Foucault, 1971). Gender diverse students are afforded less social standing
than either males or females who perform their identity in a manner consistent with socially
dominant discourses (Foucault, 1971). This is evident in the common gender diverse
experiences of abuse without peer or even teacher intervention, with the abuse seen as a
socially acceptable method of dealing with deviants from the norm (Hillier et al., 2010).
When intervention by authorities like teachers occurs, it is often only in response to abuse
in general not being socially acceptable – the gender identity based nature of the abuse is
infrequently addressed (Hillier et al., 2010; Jones et al., 2015; Ullman, 2015). Dominant
social discourses afford power and protection to those who utilise them, and hence
heteronormative students unwittingly exploit this to affirm their own identities at the
expense of gender diverse students (Ferfolja, Jones-Diaz & Ullman, 2018; Foucault, 1971).

Power imbalances and abuse are the root cause of gender diverse alienation, propagating
from discourse, institutions and peers. Gender diverse students are oppressed by
heteronormativity removing their available power, or agency, to express themselves in line
with their gender. According to Foucault (1971), discourses are socially constituted entities,
that simultaneously are granted power by and grant power to people within society as a
product of belief. In a school setting peers have significantly less individual influence on the
prevailing discourse, unlike teachers or the school as an institution, but are the primary
conduits for exercising the power heteronormativity affords. Butler’s (1988) concept of
gender performance and social construction is useful when considering peer based
enforcement of norms. Under heteronormative discourse, performance of gender in line
with the norm is a survival strategy – students avoid sanctions by being normal (Butler,
1988). The power exerted by this norm marginalises gender diverse students who
statistically account for a small percentage of their peer groups. However, gender diverse
students are not entirely powerless, as they often note access to counter discourses of
acceptance available via the internet, empowering them to better conceptualise themselves
within society (Foucault, 1971; Hillier et al., 2010). Activism is particularly important to the
agency of gender diverse students, exemplifying how even small amounts of power afforded
by counter discourses has a protective influence (Jones, 2017; Jones et al., 2015).
In contrast to peers, institutions such as schools and governments have greater influence
over discourse, using their authority to implement policies that formally promote particular
discourses, regardless of their social dominance (Foucault, 1971; Hillier et al., 2010; Jones et
al., 2015). By way of policy, as will be shown, institutions can significantly alter prevailing
discourses.

Research consistently indicates that policies regarding gender diverse students have a
significant impact on their experiences (Ferfolja, Jones-Diaz & Ullman, 2018; Hillier et al.,
2010). Schools that have accepting and supporting policy provisions for gender diverse
students improve sense of connection and academic engagement whilst mitigating rates of
abuse and suicide (Hillier et al., 2010; Jones, 2017; Jones et al., 2015; Ullman, 2015).
However the presence of supportive policy is not the norm: most students reported that
their schools lacked policy that promoted inclusivity, and ineffective policy was as bad as no
policy (Hillier et al., 2010). Research participation rates also reflect the degree to which
policy is enacted on a state by state basis, with representation consistent with the degree of
supportive policies and services available rather than overall population (Hillier et al., 2010;
Jones et al., 2015). Whilst schools should enact appropriate policy themselves, it is essential
that governments lead the way in promoting this.
New South Wales (NSW) is an important example of mediocre policy implementation
(Ferfolja, Jones-Diaz & Ullman, 2018). In the face of gender diverse student issues, the NSW
Department of Education has a whole three documents in its policy library that include
mention of gender diverse students, specifically Trans*, two of which are iterations of a
single document regarding suspensions, and the third was for bullying (NSW Department of
Education, 2019). The bullying document is limited to a single page that generally addresses
bullying and mentions being transgender alongside other causes of bullying (NSW
Department of Education, n.d.). This degree of omission feeds into heteronormative
discourse by suggesting gender diverse student equity doesn’t warrant address. Searching
outside policy specific documents yields only one more article, albeit more useful. The Legal
Issues Bulletin No.55 concerns transgender students rights and legal responsibilities
regarding their care, and outlines important strategies for schools to employ to better
support transgender students (Department of Education and Communities, 2014). It
helpfully prescribes that names, facilities use, uniforms and sports participation all be in line
with the students identity, although this does depend upon the student being “out” to some
degree. However whilst it identifies concerns relevant to transgender students it is still
steeped in heteronormative discourse – the title alone paints transgender students as a
“legal issue”. On the topic of uniforms it mentions that unisex options exist at some schools,
but doesn’t mandate that they be present in all schools to eliminate gender divisions
propagated by gendered uniforms. Further the document includes an example “support and
risk management plan” which again is both positive and negative: support is essential but
the term asserts that transgender students are a risk to be “managed”. Instead simply titling
it a “support plan” would be more suitable.
One critical stipulation is that curriculum delivery must include gender diverse identities in a
positive and inclusive manner. This is the most important step in shifting discourses around
gender diverse students and promoting their acceptance and subsequent equity (Jones et
al., 2015). The new Australian Health and Physical Education (HPE) curriculum also
contributes to normalisation of gender diversity by including discussion of societal norms
around gender and encouraging students to question stereotypes (The Australian
Curriculum, 2019; Ullman, 2015). Other key learning areas could also significantly contribute
to normalisation of gender diversity: English could utilise authors and characters of diverse
genders; or Science can incorporate more expansive understanding of sex education,
physiology and STDs.

Teachers are the enactors of policy, and must be supported by it to act in the best interests
of gender diverse students. A lack of teacher intervention and support was consistently
noted by many gender diverse students, often attributed to either an inadequacy of
education or absence of confidence towards addressing issues of gender diversity (Jones et
al., 2015; Ullman, 2015). This was particularly evident in schools that lacked policy
promoting inclusive discourse and religious schools that espouse discourses that target
gender diverse students as evil or against god (Hillier et al., 2010; Jones et al., 2015). In
situations where policy to inform teacher intervention is lacking there are useful resources
elsewhere.
The Safe Schools Coalition, NSW Teachers Federation and the new Student Wellbeing Hub
provide a wealth of resources and recommendations for supporting gender diverse students
in line with current research ("Eight ways to support trans and gender-diverse students at
school", 2019; Guide to Trans* in School, 2014; Hillier et al., 2010; Jones et al., 2015; NSW
Teachers Federation, 2019; Student Wellbeing Hub, 2019; Ullman, 2015). Teachers should
undertake professional development based on understanding gender diversity to address
the significant gaps in understanding that exist, better equipping teachers to handle issues
in schools. Following training teachers should look into their schools policies around gender
diversity and inclusivity, and suggest changes if there are any inconsistencies or omissions.
Within school grounds teachers should correct both students and their own language use to
remove discriminatory language and address issues by promoting discussion, involving
students in questioning the prevailing discourse. Use of a student’s preferred pronouns is
imperative. Lesson plans should be adapted where appropriate to include gender diverse
representation in content to promote normalisation to counter the heterocentric norm.
Teachers should ensure there are additional resources are available and keep students
appraised of them so that gender diverse students needn’t expose themselves prematurely
to get help.
The support and awareness of teachers is key to the dissolution of heteronormative
discourses and support of gender diverse students, significantly improving student
experiences and outcomes when present.
Research highlighting the routine marginalisation of gender diverse students is critical to
improving equitable practice in our schools (Hillier et al., 2010; Jones, 2017; Jones et al.,
2015; Ullman, 2015). Redress of these inequities must occur at all levels, beginning with
inclusive policy that drives teacher development and action. NSW policies, whilst lacklustre,
are stepping stones towards more adequate measures of countering the privileged binary of
gender discourse. Use of sociological theories like feminist constructivism enables policy
makers and teachers alike to reassess and dismantle these biased norms. Teacher education
on the socially constructed nature of gender paired with legislative and policy based backing
will enable inclusivity, acceptance and normalisation of gender diversity in schools in a
collective and concerted manner to enable student safety. In closing, consider the words of
Foucault (1971) “Every educational system is a political means of maintaining or of
modifying the appropriation of discourse, with the knowledge and the powers it carries with
it.” (p. 19)

References:

Butler, J. (1988). Performative Acts and Gender Constitution: An Essay in Phenomenology

and Feminist Theory. Theatre Journal, 40(4), 519. doi: 10.2307/3207893

Department of Education and Communities. (2014). Legal Issues Bulletin No. 55:

Transgender students in schools - legal rights and responsibilities. Sydney:

Department of Education and Communities.

Eight ways to support trans and gender-diverse students at school. (2019). Retrieved from

https://www.twenty10.org.au/trans-students/

Ferfolja, T., Jones-Diaz, C., & Ullman, J. Understanding sociological theory for educational

practices.

Foucault, M. (1971). Orders of discourse. Lecture, College de France.

Hillier, L., Jones, T., Monagle, M., Overton, N., Gahan, L., Blackman, J., & Mitchell, A. (2010).

Writing themselves in 3. Melbourne: Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and

Society.

Jones, T. (2017). Evidence affirming school supports for Australian transgender and gender

diverse students. Sexual Health, 14(5), 412. doi: 10.1071/sh17001

Jones, T., Smith, E., Ward, R., Dixon, J., Hillier, L., & Mitchell, A. (2015). School experiences of

transgender and gender diverse students in Australia. Sex Education, 16(2), 156-171.

doi: 10.1080/14681811.2015.1080678

NSW Department of Education. (2019). Retrieved from https://education.nsw.gov.au/

NSW Department of Education. Bias Based Bullying. Sydney: NSW Department of Education.

NSW Teachers Federation. (2019). Retrieved from https://www.nswtf.org.au/

Student Wellbeing Hub. (2019). Retrieved from https://www.studentwellbeinghub.edu.au/

The Australian Curriculum. (2019). Retrieved from

https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/

Twenty10. (2014). Guide to Trans* in School [Ebook] (2nd ed.). Sydney. Retrieved from

https://www.twenty10.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Twenty10s-Guide-to-

Trans-at-School.pdf

Ullman, J. (2015). Free2Be?: Exploring the schooling experiences of Australia’s sexuality and

gender diverse secondary school students. Centre for Educational Research, School of

Education, Western Sydney University, Penrith.