In support of gender diverse students in Australian schools

IN SUPPORT OF GENDER DIVERSE STUDENTS

in Australian schools

Ysabella Dawson

Student Wellbeing Coordinator

SUNATA 16

As Australian society has become increasingly accepting of gender diversity, the number of young people openly identifying as transgender and advocating for community and specialist healthcare support, both medical and psychological, has also risen (Riggs et al. 2014). While this appears a positive move towards social justice and equity for all, regardless of gender orientation, young people who identify as transgender and gender diverse remain vulnerable and still face an increased risk of social and academic marginalisation at school. As such, it is both prudent and necessary that school principals and their staff are equipped to deliver data-informed pastoral care to these students. Indeed, this care should stem from well-researched approaches, including wellbeing frameworks, school-wide policies, and teacher education opportunities, that facilitate a safe, respectful, and supportive learning environment for transgender and gender diverse young people.

Language and legislature

Today, Australian law describes the obligation of the school in the way they must respond to the needs of transgender and gender diverse students, with both State and Commonwealth legislation dictating that it is a requirement for schools to ensure that no discrimination occurs on the basis of gender equity (Riseman 2019). However, it is worth noting that the language and terminology referenced in existing state and territory law is rather narrow, and their definitions problematic, in that they may define people in ways that they do not define themselves. In 1987, Australia’s first legally amended birth certificate was recorded by the Births, Deaths and Marriages Department of New South Wales to reflect a change in sex of an individual (Jones et al. 2015). In the decades since, Australia’s remaining states and territories have enacted legislation to recognise the affirmed sex of an individual after surgery, unless the person is married (Jones et al. 2015). Yet despite the legal protections afforded to transgender people that prohibit discrimination on the basis of their gender identity, there remains a notable lag in social attitudes that acknowledge the lived experiences of gender diverse individuals.

Relevant contextual factors within Australian education

Since 2014, the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA n.d.) has set the expectations for what all young Australians should be taught, with state education departments responsible for the manner in which such content is delivered. Within the curriculum, ‘focus areas’

for the study of Health and Physical Education are described in great depth and detail, with the inclusion of relationships and sexuality (RS) as one of these areas. The language used in this description is explicit, noting that it is ‘crucial’ for schools to ‘acknowledge and affirm diversity in relation to sexuality and gender’. Beyond this mandate, all school communities have a responsibility when implementing the Health and Physical Education curriculum to ensure that teaching is inclusive and relevant to the lived experiences of all students, including students who may be same-sex attracted, gender diverse, or intersex (ACARA n.d.). Yet while explicit noting of such perspectives within the curriculum suggests inclusivity within the education system, the authentic acknowledgement of gender-diverse experiences within the classroom is a far more tenuous conundrum. Australian society’s dominant attitudes and acknowledgement of gender diverse individuals has, in many respects, evolved quite rapidly and not without controversy in the public discourse. Indeed, the Safe Schools program (and the subsequent furore) provides an interesting lens through which to explore the wider cultural attitudes to transgender and gender diverse support in Australian schools. In 2014, the Safe Schools Coalition Australia (SSCA) was launched, a program funded by the federal government that sought to support lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer school students. The purpose of the program was to address the increased rates of suicide, abuse, and self-harm among LGBTIQ students in Australia. Yet, the program was embroiled in controversy. On one end of the spectrum, the SSCA was vehemently defended as an antibullying program for young LGBTIQ people, or those who have issues concerning their gender identity (Parkinson 2017). Conversely, many labelled the initiative ‘social engineering’ (The Australian 2016), and following widespread controversy, the program’s funding was not renewed at the end of 2016. Suffice to say, the notion of school practices teaching to the lived experience of gender diverse individuals has seen heated debate from educational and religious institutions. To this end, while it would be simplistic to suggest that such commentary is indicative of universal hostility towards the meaningful development of transgender and gender diversity support in schools, it rather illustrates the complexity of developing such support amidst heated ideological debate.

Psychosocial wellbeing

Studies consistently show that gender diverse youth are at risk for poorer mental health. Clark et al. (2014) have explored the relationship between being transgender and a number of selected health outcomes in a nationally representative sample of 8,166 high school students in New Zealand. Students who were transgender or not sure about their gender had more depressive symptoms and suicide attempts compared to their non-transgender peers. In a cross-sectional cohort study, Becerra-Culqui et al. (2018) compared the prevalence of mental health disorders in 588 transfeminine and 745 transmasculine children and adolescents to a matched cisgender reference group in North America. Attention deficit and depressive disorders were seven-fold higher in the transgender and gender nonconforming group. Suicidal ideation and self-harm injuries were also higher in the gender diverse group. Chodzen et al. (2019) assessed depression and anxiety in 109 transgender and gender non-conforming youth in North America with the aim of identifying factors that predicted vulnerability to mental health problems. Overall, one third of the sample met the criteria for major depressive disorder and almost half met the criteria for generalised anxiety disorder. Risk factors for poorer outcomes included lower gender identity appearance congruence and higher internalised transphobia. This latter finding highlights the importance of the sociocultural environment and the role of stigmatisation as a contributor to mental health outcomes in gender diverse youth.

Stigma and discrimination

The role of bullying and peer victimisation as a contributor to poorer student educational and mental health outcomes is well established, not only in the educational literature but also in lay conversation in the community as evidenced in the broader media. Minority groups or populations that do not conform to community norms, and, more specifically, a heteronormative culture, can be expected to be particularly vulnerable (Madireddy & Madireddy 2020). Day et al. (2018) assessed the school experiences of 31,896 North American youth and found that transgender youth were more likely to experience victimisation and bullying at school and perceive the school climate as negative compared to non-transgender youth. Clark et al. (2014) reported that New Zealand high school students who were transgender or not sure about their gender were more likely to feel unsafe at school and experience bullying and have difficulty accessing health services compared to their non-transgender peers. Hatchel and Marx (2018) explored the relationship between school belonging, peer victimisation, and drug use in 4,778 North American youth who identified as transgender. The authors concluded that transgender youth are exposed to substantial peer victimisation and drug use engagement, and importantly, that school belonging mediated the relationship between peer victimisation and drug use. This study therefore supported the importance of a positive school climate to ameliorate the negative effects of peer victimisation. Huebner Thomas and Neilands (2015) also found that antiLGBT victimisation was associated with substance use in 504 ethnically diverse North American LGBT adolescents. Hence, these authors suggest that both a positive school climate and healthy peer groups are needed to help LGBTIQA+ adolescents cope effectively with mistreatment in school.

Parental support and pastoral care

Support of the parents of transgender children is crucial, and indeed these parents are themselves vulnerable to isolation and distress. Davy and Cordoba (2020) interviewed 23 parents in the United Kingdom who were supportive of their transgender SUNATA 17

SUNATA 18

and gender diverse children. This qualitative research applied a phenomenological approach focusing on the parent experience. In this study, parents described their own journey of learning to understand gender diversity, coming to accept their children as gender diverse, and then supporting their children in the coming out process within the school environment. Parents themselves often became the change agent in the school with schools often being reactive rather than proactive in gender democratisation. Parents described various touch points where difficulties were amplified, and these included transitions such as moving between schools, dealing with gender-based bullying, critical incidents such as attempted suicide by their child, hostility from other parents, and their constant work to protect their child from gender policing. These authors concluded that schools tend to be ad hoc in how they support transgender and gender diverse children and that diversity affirming policies are needed. Also adopting a qualitative approach, Sansfacon et al.(2015) examined the needs of parents in a participatory action group work study with 14 Canadian parents of gender-variant children. A key recommendation was that networking between parents was an empowering approach that might be facilitated outside of traditional care services. These findings emphasise the importance of co-design of support programs for marginalised groups.

School health policies

Demissie et al. (2018) reported that many states in North America had not implemented strategies and practices to support lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer youth. These researchers called for more research and action in the implementation of such policies and practices if this area of student health is to be improved. Graybill and Proctor (2016) analysed North American school support personnel journals across school counselling, nursing, psychology, and social work and found a lack of presence of LGBTQ issues. These authors suggest that there needed to be an intentional focus on the concerns of LGBTQ youth if discrimination in schools is to be ameliorated. Jones (2017) reviewed Australian laws and policies as they relate to transgender and gender diverse students and their access to sexuality education. This author suggested that the rights of these students were represented in Australian National Curricula and concluded that transgender and gender diverse students had been effective in education activism and in building their own resilience while supporting change. Again highlighting the importance of school health policies and practices, Proulx et al. (2019), in a study that included 47,730 high school students, found a wide range of protective effects ensued for youth where LGBTQ-inclusive sex education had been implemented. Benefits included reduced suicidality for all students, less bullying for lesbian and gay youth, and less depressive symptoms for bisexual youth. Given there were benefits for all students, this study suggested that the sociocultural context of a school that includes LGBTQ-inclusive sex education is beneficial for the broader school community. As previously outlined, movement towards policies and practices to better support gender diverse youth is not without controversy. The production of a guide to support classroom activities around gender diversity in Australia as part of the Safe Schools Coalition Australia led to sustained attacks on the program in what Thompson (2019) called an example of moral panic. For example, Parkinson (2017) argued that the program might actually cause harm by not acknowledging that many children resolve gender dysphoria at puberty. Ullman (2017) also discussed this backlash and the resultant silence that occurs in the school environment around gender diversity. To this end, Ullman surveyed 704 same-sex attracted and genderdiverse Australian teenagers and found that teacher positivity about gender diversity was crucial in connecting these students to the school environment. In an integrated approach, Madireddy and Madireddy (2020) reviewed the literature on strategies to address bullying and victimisation in schools for LGBTQ+ identities. Recommendations centred around how to improve the school environment to be protective of LGBTQ+ students, but beyond this to provide a ‘gateway to mental health’ in the sense of opportunistically fostering resilience and openness to help seeking that might then flow on into later life for these individuals. A series of recommendations were proposed for counsellors and teachers, as well as for principals, that included anti-bullying policies that specifically target victimisation on the basis of sexual orientation or gender diversity; education not only for school staff but also for stakeholder groups in the community; training for staff in inclusivity; an inclusive curricula; collaboration with families of LGBTQ+ students; and a support system for LGBTQ+ staff and students. Across all these recommendations was the crosscutting theme of allyship with the goal to build a community that would be inclusive of diversity and difference.

Recommendations for practice

A review of recent literature would suggest that transgender visibility in educational contexts combined with state and commonwealth legislature that prohibits discrimination has resulted in an increased focus on the needs of these individuals. However, while legislation often informs school policy documents, schools must do more than simply acknowledge these young people, and ensure that they are also places that offer safe, respectful, and equitable learning environments tailored to the specific needs of their students. Data-informed approaches, including support programs, teacher education, development interventions for school-based nurses, psychologists, and those involved in pastoral care, as well as school-wide policies that foster the support and inclusion of transgender and gender diverse students, are needed. These are not only an imperative for students who identify in this way, but are a beneficial addition for all members of the school community who have a duty to operate within a respectful and inclusive environment. The social ecological model as presented by the Centres for Disease Control (2020) presents as a framework that can be applied to map out an effective intervention approach for supporting transgender and gender

diverse youth. This model proposes that intervention to improve health and life outcomes needs to operate at four levels: the individual; their relationships; their community; and finally, the society they live in. Operationalising this model in this context means first understanding the diversity of transgender and non-conforming youth and their vulnerabilities and risks. Health and education services need to be student-centred and respond to individual needs, preferably applying co-design principles to ensure the agreed intervention has high acceptability to students and to parents. Second, relationships between peers, school personnel, and families need to be mutually respectful and model acceptance, social justice, and equity. Third, the school community and the climate that is set by school policies and practices and the school leadership will be crucial in broadening out beyond a heteronormative culture to support all students and staff regardless of their gender or sexual orientation. Finally, legislative advancements that protect the rights of minority groups are needed, and this is an area where vigilance is needed to ensure continued progress.

References

Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority n. d., Australian Curriculum: Health and Physical Education, viewed 21 February 2021, https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10curriculum/health-and-physicaleducation/structure/#focusare Becerra-Culqui, TA, Liu, Y, Nash, R, Cromwell, L, Flanders, WD, Getahun, D, Giammattei, SV, Hunkeler, EM, Lash, TL, Millman, A & Quinn, VP 2018, ‘Mental health of transgender and gender nonconforming youth compared with their peers’, Pediatrics, vol. 141, no. 5. Bita, N 2016, ‘Activists push taxpayer-funded gay manual in schools’, The Australian, viewed 03 February 2021, https://www.theaustralian. com.au/nation/education/activistspush-taxpayerfunded-gay-manualin-schools/newsstory/4de614a88e38ab7b16601f07417c6219 Chodzen, G, Hidalgo, MA, Chen, D & Garofalo, R 2019, ‘Minority stress factors associated with depression and anxiety among transgender and gender-nonconforming youth’, Journal of Adolescent Health, vol. 64, no. 4, pp. 467-471. Clark, TC, Lucassen, MF, Bullen, P, Denny, SJ, Fleming, TM, Robinson, EM & Rossen, FV 2014, ‘The health and well-being of transgender high school students: results from the New Zealand adolescent health survey (Youth’12)’, Journal of Adolescent Health, vol 55, no.1, pp. 93-99. Davy, Z &s Cordoba, S 2020, ‘School cultures and trans and genderdiverse children: parents’ perspectives’, Journal of GLBT Family Studies, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 349-367. Day, JK, Perez-Brumer, A & Russell, ST 2018, ‘Safe schools? Transgender youth’s school experiences and perceptions of school climate’, Journal of Youth and Adolescence, vol 47, no. 8, pp. 1731-1742. Demissie, Z, Rasberry, CN, Steiner, RJ, Brener, N & McManus, T 2018, ‘Trends in secondary schools’ practices to support lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning students, 2008–2014’, American Journal of Public Health, vol 108, no. 4, pp. 557-564. Graybill, EC & Proctor, SL 2016, ‘Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth: Limited representation in school support personnel journals’, Journal of School Psychology, vol. 54, pp. 9-16. Hatchel, T & Marx, R 2018, ‘Understanding intersectionality and resiliency among transgender adolescents: Exploring pathways among peer victimization, school belonging, and drug use’, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol. 15, no. 6, p.1289. Huebner, DM, Thomas, BC & Neilands, TB 2015, ‘School victimization and substance use among lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender adolescents’, Prevention Science, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 734-743. Jones, T 2015, Policy and gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and intersex students, Springer International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland. Madireddy, S & Madireddy, S 2020, ‘Strategies for schools to prevent psychosocial stress, stigma, and suicidality risks among LGBTQ+ students’, American Journal of Educational Research, vol. 8, no. 9, pp. 659-667. Parkinson, P 2017, ‘Gender dysphoria and the controversy over the Safe Schools program’, Sexual Health, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 417-422. Proulx, CN, Coulter, RW, Egan, JE, Matthews, DD & Mair, C 2019, ‘Associations of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning–inclusive sex education with mental health outcomes and schoolbased victimization in US high school students’, Journal of Adolescent Health, vol. 64, no. 5, pp. 608-614. Pullen Sansfaçon, A, Robichaud, MJ & Dumais-Michaud, AA 2015, ‘The experience of parents who support their children’s gender variance’, Journal of LGBT Youth, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 39-63. Riggs, DW, Ansara, GY & Treharne, GJ 2015, ‘An evidence based model for understanding the mental health experiences of transgender Australians’, Australian Psychologist, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 32-39. Riseman, N 2019, ‘Transgender Inclusion and Australia’s Failed Sexuality Discrimination Bill’, Australian Journal of Politics & History, vol. 65, no. 2, pp. 259-277. Thompson, JD 2019, ‘Predatory schools and student non-lives: A discourse analysis of the Safe Schools Coalition Australia controversy’, Sex Education, vol. 19, no.1, pp. 41-53. Ullman, J 2017, ‘Teacher positivity towards gender diversity: Exploring relationships and school outcomes for transgender and gender-diverse students’, Sex Education, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 276-289.

SUNATA 19