What About the "T"? Is Multicultural Education Ready to Address Transgender Issues?

Avenue T: using film asentréein teaching about transgender

“…Allan et al 2008;Beemyn and Rankin 2011;Espelage and Swearer 2008;Waterman et al 2001). Across much of the professional discourse surrounding inclusive sexuality education, the 'T' often is wedded to LGBT; however, without a coherent understanding of these identities -and some ease at discussing their differences -educators may be doing a disservice to explicating both the similarities and differences surrounding sexual orientation and gender identity (Airton 2009;Goldner 2011;McCarthy 2003; also see Saketopoulou 2011, for a case study of intersecting dimensions of gender, class, and race on a child displaying gender atypicality) if presenting them as if they were a unitary construct. That is, although using LGBT is fashionable and often used with an eye towards inclusivity, when the T is absent from discussions or curricula, it can be unclear how transgender is similar to, or different from, discussions about sexual orientation.…”

“…Instructors from a variety of disciplines, including art (Dittman and Meecham 2006), history (Reis 2004), literature (Abbott 2009), psychology (Case et al 2009), sociology (Berkowitz, Manohar, and Tinkler 2010;Wentling et al 2008), and sexuality/gender (Drabinski 2011;Preston 2011), have incorporated transgender-related content into curricula. That is, in these classes, transgender-related course material is not included as a sidebar to content relating to sexual orientation but, rather, is included into a course structure as a separate topic of legitimate inquiry (Case et al 2009;McCarthy 2003). The inclusion of gender identities into appropriate course curricula legitimises an academic discourse on the nature and experience of transgender.…”

Shifting Paradigms: Moving Beyond “Trans 101” in Sexuality Education

“…When we are minimally inclusive of transpeople and related issues in our curricula, our work perpetuates systematic cisgender privilege, mirrors the overall marginalization of transpeople in greater society, and ignores a powerful opportunity to advocate for a community that faces unnecessary and overtly cruel discrimination (McCarthy, 2003). Examples of this minimal inclusion include when we choose not to be trans inclusive for fear that it is distracting and detracts from our central content, when we assume that others will cover trans content in future lessons, or when we make decisions not to use inclusive language as a default in our sexuality education work.…”

“…Common knowledge suggests that, when included, topics of gender diversity are most often included as an afterthought in lessons about sexual orientation (McCarthy, 2003). There are pros and cons to this approach.…”

“…This may also mean that trans identities will receive minimal time during a course and will be included as a peripheral part of the LGBTQ community, as has been seen in research on "LGBT" groups where the 'T' is frequently included in name only (McCarthy, 2003). It is also conceivable that the separation of trans content in curricular design may incidentally contribute to the stigmatization of transpeople through tokenization and marginalization.…”