Reading Response (4): Gender Categorisation, Even in Primary Schools

Francis, B., & Paechter, C. (2015). The problem of gender categorisation: addressing dilemmas past and present in gender and education research. Gender and Education, 27(7), 776-790. 

1. What are the major ideas in the article?
This article addresses the problematic nature of gender categorisation by examining the history of gender theory. Francis & Paechter discuss the history of the term ‘gender’ and its storied relation to ‘sex.’ They explore how gender comes into being –in the spectator, and in the individual’s self-expression. Gender is continually ‘haunted’ by a dualist past in which an individual’s gender must conform to one of two categories: masculine or feminine. There is, however, some utility in gender categorization, as restrictive as it may be, in identifying discrimination and violence based on gender. Francis & Paechter present a dilemma surrounding the deconstruction of gender: how do we fight for equal rights without first placing genders into limited categories? “If we do not identify and analyse research participants according to gender, the feminist project is rendered inoperable” (p. 783). Additionally, many people rely on gender in order to form their identity, so eliminating gender altogether is seen as a troublesome action. The authors put forth three lenses which are to be viewed simultaneously when denoting gender: the spectator view, the individual respondents’ view, and the features of the local discursive and material collage which enable the gender production and recognition.

2. What serious questions/issues does the reading raise regarding gender and sexuality and young people?

The discussion around gender identity in children expresses that, in times of neutral-gender presentation, “we may have to pay closer attention to the detail of children’s gender identity claims and performances in order to give due respect and legitimation to individuals’ understandings of who they are” (p. 786). Young people may have not yet developed traditional physical traits of a gender, so great care is needed to listen to their gender performance – both in their presentation and in their spoken self-identification. It is important that gender is not ascribed onto the individual, and they are allowed the freedom to express their identity.

3. In what ways does this article reinforce, extend, challenge, or oppose your own views on gender and sexuality study/research/practice?

It is interesting to view this article in comparison with Scott Turner’s TEDx Talk “The End of Gender.” Turner proposes a world without gender as a utopian society, but Francis & Paechter  quote Butler, who observes that gender does have merits: “Some want to be gender-free, but others want to be free really to be a gender that is crucial to who they are” (p. 785). In this sense, gender has become societally integral to an individual’s identity, and to strip that away would be to deny their existence: “it behoves us to be mindful that our response to the increasing visibility and political power of currently marginalized individuals and groups does not lead to a denial of identifications for which they have fought long and hard” (p. 785). I generally view gender as negative categorization, but this article challenged my view, and proved it does have value in the individual.

4. What do you take away from the reading in terms of your own gender inclusive practice as a future educator?
The three lenses that Francis & Paechter provide will be useful in a classroom setting when interacting with students, especially those who are younger and may have not yet developed physical gender traits. I will be sure to remember there are many ways gender is expressed and received. Students may have a self-affirmed gender identity that does not conform to how I believe they are presenting, so I must be mindful of not assuming or ascribing a particular gender onto any student.

Renold, E. (2000). ‘Coming out’: gender,(hetero) sexuality and the primary school. Gender and Education, 12(3), 309-326.

1. What are the major ideas in the article?

In this article, Renold explores how students in primary school act out hetero-normative gender roles. Girls were constantly worried about their appearance in relation to the ‘male gaze’ of their classmates; indeed attractiveness was attained mainly through the highly regarded status of ‘girlfriend.’ Boys’ masculinities were tied to the hegemonic ideal and were available through their relations with girls, but also through practising sport. Homophobia and misogyny were common practices among the boys, in order to appear more masculine. The article is not startling in that it finds that students act out hetero-normative gender roles but, rather, that they do so from such a young age.

2. What serious questions/issues does the reading raise regarding gender and sexuality and young people?

Inherent in the study of gender at the primary school level is the issue of sexuality in – and the sexualisation of – ‘underage’ children. While this is a taboo subject in society, it is crucial to an understanding of how gender identity and sexuality develop in youth. Renold necessarily addresses this in a discussion around a specific girl who was openly displaying her sexuality: “the notion of children possessing sexual knowledge or engaging in sexual activity has provoked wider media debates in the form of moral panics” (p. 312-313). As a society we have to move past this ‘moral panic’ if we are to truly help foster positive sexual attitudes and identities in our children.

3. In what ways does this article reinforce, extend, challenge, or oppose your own views on gender and sexuality study/research/practice?

Taken out of context, the conversation transcripts could be mistaken for something someone in high school could say, such as when the girls express their sexual insecurity: “We’re just worried about our legs particularly” (p. 311). This extends my view of gender identity and sexualization to include students who are in primary grades. Children are developing sexual identities from an early age – perhaps due in part to influence from the media – and, as the article notes, more research must be done at the level of development.

4. What do you take away from the reading in terms of your own gender inclusive practice as a future educator?

Gender and sexuality are not ‘comfortable’ topics to teach at any level, let alone in the setting of a primary classroom. But as an educator, I owe it to my students to teach them about what is important in their lives.  As Renold argues, “children in primary schools should learn about lesbian and gay sexuality beyond the knowledge they pick up on the playground” (p. 324). Despite efforts to ignore or dismiss them, children are encountering these non-binary notions of sexuality and gender at school – let’s make sure that it is the educators who are guiding the conversation, and not the bullies.