Response to articles
The selected week four articles highlight not only pertinent issues that revolve around gender and schooling but also proposes remedial measures that could be put in place to address the shortcomings of the traditional interventions in place. In the contemporary schooling context and the ever-evolving choices of the learners, issues revolving around gender remain thorny and needs deep deliberation for a common ground to understand the gender issues arising. In the two articles, one binding problem emanates from gender disparity and how matters of sexuality could be addressed in schools. As opposed to the traditional approaches, the current crop of learners has the liberty and desire to associate with a particular gender and sexuality. Such instances are not restricted to homes but also elapses to schools since it has formed part of their lives. However, there still exists prejudice from the learners and the teachers towards issues related to hetero-gender and minority gender groups. The minority gender groups include the transgender, intersex, and genderqueer members. The genderqueer students also exist as they are individuals who perceive do not want to associate themselves with the two binary classifications of gender.
Owing to the prejudice and the stereotype related to the gender minority groups, these learners are highly susceptible to violence and other dehumanizing acts from the fellow learners. Based on the assertions put forth by Jack et al. (2018), such learners are at high risks of verbal attacks or even physical violence. These individuals, just like the LGB groups, are the victims of the societal intolerance and the perception that they are non-conformists. A perfect example could be drawn from James & Epstein’s article Sexualities, Schooling and Hetero-gender when a school suspended over 200 learners due to the ‘unbecoming behavior of canoodling in school. Such action and the uproar that followed it shows the difficulties that individuals from the gender minorities still encounter.
In a concurrent voice, the articles also offer wide of interventions that could be put in place to address such issues in the school context through advocacy and sensitization. In advocacy, school counsellors are pivotal in formulating various strategies that are not only remedial but also inculcates desirable behaviors among the learners. On the other hand, through individual and group counselling, gay-straight alliances, classroom lessons, and adoption of gender minority-inclusive curriculum in schools, the counsellors can effectively address such discrepancies in schools. Further, carrying out advocacy in schools through collaborations and partnerships, building alliances with staff members, coalition advocacy, and community advocacy and policymaking are essential in sensitizing the people and creating awareness regarding gender and gender minority groups. For instance, in school, it should be made a rule that students from different gender identity sit next to each other, participate in the same group discussion, and engages in games without considering the gender lines. Again, the curricula developed should remain gender-sensitive or gender-neutral, tacking in respect all the existing gender disparities in schools.
In conclusion, the ideas presented in the two articles in combating prejudice and stereotype associated with gender minority is timely, insightful and vital in remedying the contentious issues in most schools in Western society. From a personal perspective, I have witnessed learners subjected to mental torture since they belong to ‘a non-conforming’ gender identity. Thus, the proposals in these articles must address the contentious questions that revolve around the behavior change, tolerance, and diversity to address the gender minority and hetero-gender in the schools effectively.