The Assumption of a Cis-Normative World is False

In the field of gender and sexuality research, there is a growing body of literature surrounding the topic of gender inclusion in learning environments, including strategies outlined to help integrate transgender individuals into an assumed cisnormative world. Typically drawing upon the allegory of gendered bathrooms to explore the issue of gender-exclusion deeper it is clear that the intersection of policy, physical and attitudinal barriers stand in the way of transgender individuals feeling comfortable in educational institutions. The terms ‘transgender’ and ‘gender creative’ will be used interchangeably to describe individuals whose gender identity differs from the sex they were assigned at birth. ‘Heteronormativity’ will be used to describe the assumption that heterosexuality (being attracted to a person of the opposite sex) and ‘cisnormativity’ will be used in reference to the assumption that a person’s gender identity matches their biological sex.

It is clear from the literature that policy is a necessary stepping-stone to facilitate change, helping transgender (trans) students feel more comfortable and valued in educational spaces. Recent studies have estimated that “as many as 75% of trans students report feeling unsafe in high school because of their gender expression, and 50% of trans students report being prevented (e.g., by school officials) from using the name or pronoun that match their gender” (Goldberg, 2018: p.3). This data highlights the integrated structural boundaries that intersect attitudinal stigma, influencing the lived experience of gender creative students. Assumptions of heteronormativity and cisnormativity are evident in all areas of education, from curriculum to classroom practices, displaying how engrained these ideas are (Goldberg, 2018: p.4). Policy could shift how practices are carried out in educational institutions which should inform individuals attitudes as they think more critically about their actions. In areas where more transgender inclusive policies have already been employed it has been “related to a greater sense of belonging and more positive perceptions of campus climate” (Goldberg, 2018: p.6). The success of integrating transgender inclusive policies in educational spaces provides support for the inclusion of more policies as they have a positive influence on the community.

Despite policy change being a step that needs to be taken to facilitate positive change, it cannot be the only action taken to make educational environments more inclusive for gender creative students. Omercajic and Martino (2020) hold this view, highlighting that “policy itself is a necessary political intervention [but] it is rendered ineffective unless educators can address their own subconscious desires for learning and teaching within a gender binary and cisgenderist framework” (p.8). This demonstrates the necessity of policy change to help facilitate attitudinal change; however, it also displays the inability of policy to change attitudes unless individuals are open to it. Policies must be nuanced and have the capacity to continue the conversation past the text, allowing further engagement. This demonstrates how policies must be used to create the space for transgender voices without engaging in it as a ‘tick- box’ exercise: policies must work to affirm gender creative identities and reflect the value they bring to educational environments. By actively engaging with these voices within the sphere of the classroom, a more gender-complex approach can be facilitated to interrogate the cisnormative frameworks typically employed in schools.

The debate surrounding the accessibility of gendered bathrooms has been used in modern literature as a symbolic allegory to facilitate conversations about transgender rights centered around the physical barriers they face in public spaces, including educational institutions (Farley and Leonardi, 2021: p.279). Through focusing on the physical barriers, the aim is to allow cisgendered individuals to see the binary representation of gender in a tangible way which can evoke images of violence and discrimination based on gender identity (Farley and Leonardi, 2021: p.280). By allowing the cisgender gaze to focus on physical elements of discrimination, this allows the conversation to develop, moving towards fewer tangible forms of discrimination such as ideas of protection and attitudes that victimize gender creative individuals. Therefore, the physical barriers transgender individuals face can only be described as the tip of the iceberg, and a narrow focus would only work to perpetuate a cis-gendered narrative on accessible spaces for gender creative individuals. Initially the conversation using the issue of gendered bathrooms can be a good entry point but must be identified as a fraction of the discrimination transgender individuals face.

Gendered bathrooms and toilets work on cis-normative assumptions that everyone feels comfortable using the toilets for the sex they were assigned at birth. As a result of this, transgender students need to explicitly ask for gender neutral bathroom options or must make an active decision to use the bathroom they feel most comfortable using. For transgender students this results in a pressure to request individual accommodations, being forced to reveal their gender identity in the process (Omercajic and Martino, 2020: p.10). This creates a category of ‘the other’ due to the reinforced gender binary maintained in educational settings using gendered bathrooms (Omercajic and Martino, 2020: p.10). For accommodations to be sought out by transgender individuals, it reinforces the assumption that change can only occur when gender creative students are attending the specific institution. This places transgender students in a position of responsibility to make the changes needed for them to feel comfortable, disregarding the institutional power and responsibility to make physical changes for the future. Furthermore, “bathroom discussions foreground notions of safety... anti-trans[gender] activists use notions of safety to call into question the appropriateness of allowing trans[gender] women to use the (cisgender) women’s restroom, arguing violent cisgender men may opportunistically abuse these policies to pray on unsuspecting cis-gender women” (Farley and Leonardi, 2021: p.281). This argument is made in many discussions surrounding the topic of gender-neutral bathroom labelling and access. However, this argument is inherently flawed due to its assumption that cisgender women are fragile and need protection. This perpetuates a false narrative that women are weak and delicate whilst also framing transgender women as men in dresses, not women. Moreover, “this rhetoric also distracts from the needs of trans[gender] individuals to be safe in the restroom” (Farley and Leonardi, 2021: p.281). By focusing purely on the safety of cisgendered women, the safety of transgender individuals is disregarded and pushed to the side, undermining the reasoning behind gender neutral bathrooms: to ensure individuals feel able to and safe to use bathrooms regardless of their gender identity. If bathrooms are seen as a physical representation of the discrimination against transgender individuals, this conversation perpetuates the cisgendered normativity and, purposefully or not, silence transgender voices who want to be able to access spaces that affirm their gender identity.

The changes that are being made regarding policy and physical barriers are helping to facilitate positive attitudes towards transgender individuals from the cisgender community. However, more can be done to resolve the issue of discrimination against gender creative students in educational settings. The theorists Meyer, Stafford and Airton (2016) have identified that educational professionals typically view transgender students as problems that need resolutions (p.37). This ignores the intersectionality of individuals lived experiences and reduces the student to an issue without viewing the value they bring to the school. Furthermore, by reducing the student to an issue the school environment is not critically examined as a point of tension or conflict (Meyer, Stafford and Airton, 2016: p.37). By overlooking the school’s influence on students, it dismisses the impact the environment has on individuals' attitudes towards gender creative students and places all responsibility on the shoulders of the transgender individuals. Therefore, the school must view themselves as an active agent that can use policy and the removal of physical barriers to create a more inclusive environment.

However, following this the approach must go deeper than just a policy or physical shift to remove barriers, but a deeper shift in applying anti-oppressive pedagogies (Meyer, Stafford and Airton, 2016: p.39). In the school environment a shift needs to occur from viewing gender and sexuality as binaries to more fluid ideas and interpretations. Moreover, by reflecting the fluidity of gender and sexuality in school administration, “schools can become places of peace, curiosity and healthy holistic development for all children and youth” (Meyer, Stafford and Airton, 2016: p.39). This fluid approach to gender, sexuality and school organization facilitates anti-oppressive learning environments with inclusive attitudes towards groups typically ‘othered’; not just applying to transgender students but other minority groups that face discrimination in educational settings. Therefore, the inclusion of transgender inclusive policies and the removal of discriminatory physical barriers is a positive step towards fostering more inclusive attitudes. However, a fluid queer pedagogy must also be employed in both the curriculum and school organization to ensure individuals are not discriminated against for their gender identity.

GLOSSARY

Transgender - An umbrella term for anyone whose gender identity does not match their sex and/or gender assigned at birth.

Cisnormative - The assumption that all individuals are cisgender.

Cisgender - A person whose gender identity is the same as their sex and/or gender assigned at birth.

Heteronormative - The assumption that all individuals are heterosexual.

Gender Binary - Remaining within the two genders of male and/or female, excluding other genders such as non-binary.

Gender Identity - The identifier (or lack of identifier) someone uses to communicate how they understand their personal gender, navigate within or outside our societal gender systems, and/or desire to be perceived by others.

Definitions sourced from "The ABC's of LGBT+"by Ash Hardell

---

REFERENCES

- Farley, A. and Leonardi, B. (2021) Beyond Bathroom Bills and the Gender Identity Debate: Complicating and Policy Conversation about Supporting Trans Students in School. Educational Policy. 35(2) pp. 274- 303.

Available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0895904820986770?casa_token=OM8YAQAzN10AAAAA %3AcSVM_zMIjYRB19E0dyAZk1JlhqjoyWlr5cdLYYpd1bEGnv0pAI8r8_Rhsu_XPENwZqWnUKYaaI17 [Accessed on 26th March 2021]

- Goldberg, A. (2018) Transgender Students in Higher Education. The Williams Institute: UCLA School of Law. Available at: https://escholarship.org/content/qt4p22m3kx/qt4p22m3kx.pdf [Accessed on 26th March 2021]

- Meyer, E., Stafford, A. and Airton, L. (2016) Transgender and Gender Creative Students in PK-12 Schools: What We Can Learn from Their Teachers. Teacher College Record. 118 pp.1-50. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Lee-Airton/publication/307044198_Transgender_and_gender- creative_students_in_PK- 12_schools_What_we_can_learn_from_their_teachers/links/5b475e72aca272c60938c31f/Transgender- and-gender-creative-students-in-PK-12-schools-What-we-can-learn-from-their-teachers.pdf [Accessed on 26th March 2021]

- Omercajic, K. and Martino, W. (2020) Supporting Transgender Inclusion and Gender Diversity in Schools: A Critical Policy Analysis. Frontiers in Sociology. 5(27) pp.1-13. Available at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsoc.2020.00027/full [Accessed on 26th March 2021]