In recent years, more than 500 bills across the country have targeted transgender rights and concerns over gender “indoctrination” in schools. Advocates for banning books or curriculum on gender and sexuality claim such topics are essentially pornography — a claim this author, a social studies teacher, finds misleading. I’ll present some central questions and misconceptions of gender studies and highlight the danger of demonizing transgender people. The hyper-focus today on gender might be misplaced, but fear-mongering is dangerous.

“Gender studies” analyze the relationship between gender and society. In 1920, the 19th Amendment was passed denying voting discrimination on account of sex. During the Cold War, John Wayne epitomized western masculinity. By the ‘70s, more women were attending university, and Carol Burnett epitomized the “funny” woman. LGBT people confronted the Cold War’s Lavender Scare — the fear that gay Americans may be susceptible to communism. Since the ‘70s, “deaths of despair” and fentanyl usage has noticeably afflicted white working-class men. One of our local county commissioners recently took physical action against an unruly speaker, refusing to apologize because “his parents raised him to be a defender.” We see that much that can be illuminated by considering sexuality and gender.

Gender is usually defined as the social norms surrounding one’s sex, based on the time and place. Debate persists over to what extended gender is “socialized.” By six months, infants can differentiate and identify with the gender of their parents. Some experience gender dysphoria, where our gender might not align with our sex at birth — transgender. Today, we see transgender Americans making up less than 2 percent of the population and a rise in non-conforming identity to around 10 percent. Curiously, we don’t see a corresponding rise in gender dysphoria. Accounting for this has led to questions about generational rebellion, linguistic identity, and how best to confront sex discrimination.

The philosopher Judith Butler helped develop the theory of gender performativity; that is, as a socially conditioned performance often correlated with a status, power, and oppression. Gender norms, she argues, can be subtly resisted by acting against that performance. Butler also more controversially claims that even the body is subject to this construction. Her work is foundational and has influenced countless others. Martha Nussbaum, the American philosopher, famously critiqued her work arguing that reducing gender to “performance” is more of an intellectual exercise and does not do justice to lived experiences. Women don’t perform being denied voting rights, education, or property. Changing one’s performance or label has little effect on the harm perpetrated across the world. Thus, Nussbaum argues that Butler’s ideas might be true for her but are inadequate to fully appreciate gender. Whether we’ve misinterpreted Butler or not, these ideas have hit the mainstream.

Have there always only been two genders? Plato’s Symposium has a creation story with three; and the Republic argues that distinctions of men or women becoming philosopher kings is only socialization. In ancient Egypt, three genders were documented; “two-spirit” persons are found in Native American communities; in India, Hijras are a recognized third gender; and in Buddhism, four genders are recognized. In Judeo-Christian traditions, the two genders descending from Adam and Eve epitomize the western ideal.

LGBT inclusion has shifted radically in recent years. In the ‘90s, the comedian Ellen DeGeneres famously lost her TV sitcom after coming out. DeGeneres’ coming out was symbolic of decades of culture wars. Homosexuality was considered a mental disorder until 1973. Laws mandating gender specific clothing were enforced until recently. Same-sex intimacy was only decriminalized by the Supreme Court in 2003 (Lawrence v. Texas) and same-sex marriage was affirmed in 2015 (Obergefell v. Hodges). Today, there are concerns over whether transwomen have an unfair advantage in sports (trans college athletes make up about 50 out of 200,000 athletes). Some studies have shown this could be the case, though it is not conclusive. That said, these questions have nothing to do with civil, economic, and educational rights. Equating them serve as centuries old forms of cultural discrimination rationalizing assault and murder (today, more than double cisgender people, and disproportionately black trans women).

The graphic novel “Gender Queer” topped book bans due to displays of the queer experience. Some reduce the story to pornography. Some passages are more mature, not gratuitously, but as an earnest look at development. Although, we do see gratuitous and grotesque images in classrooms regularly, usually as war films. There is a”‘pornography of violence” seen in “Saving Private Ryan,” of which the first 20 minutes has become canon in many history classes. Teachers show Ryan to demonstrate how it “really was,” because we want students to empathize with the reality of war. Similarly, understanding how gender and masculinity inform war and violence is part of that authentic understanding.

Our civic life is improved with healthy attitudes toward sexuality and gender. The hundreds of laws being pushed today will only reinforce stigma, hate crimes, promote generational prejudice, and enable schools and workplaces to discriminate. The kids are alright, though the legislatures seeking to disenfranchise minorities are not.

Published at Herald and News, August 4, 2023