Regulating 'gender climate' : exploring the social construction of gender and sexuality in regional and rural Australian schools

P ot ag fo e rd P r is oo tri fs bu tio n Understanding Sociological Theory for Educational Practices N In contemporary classrooms, it is crucial for teachers to have a thorough understanding of sociological issues in education. Understanding Sociological Theory and Pedagogical Practices addresses sociological theory, highlighting its relevance to policy, curriculum and practice for the pre-service teacher education student. The book explores a range of sociological issues related to diversity, disadvantage, discrimination and marginalisation, contributing to the preparation of future teachers for work in a range of educational contexts. It seeks to dispel the traditional ‘one-size-its-all’ notion of education, encouraging future teachers to think critically and relexively in terms of creating a welcoming and equitable student environment through knowledge, inclusion and understanding. Understanding Sociological Theory and Pedagogical Practices is an invaluable resource for primary, secondary and early childhood pre-service teacher education students as they prepare to navigate the diversity of the modern classroom. It is also an excellent resource for practitioners and researchers interested in issues of diversity and difference in education. Tania Ferfolja is a Senior Lecturer in Social and Cultural Diversity at the University of Western Sydney. Criss Jones Díaz is a Senior Lecturer in Diversity Studies and Language Education at the University of Western Sydney. Jacqueline Ullman is a Lecturer in Adolescent Development, Behaviour and Wellbeing at the University of Western Sydney. 9781107477469pre_pi-xx.indd 1 09/03/15 8:25 PM P ot ag fo e rd P r is oo tri fs bu tio n N 9781107477469pre_pi-xx.indd 2 09/03/15 8:25 PM Edited by P ot ag fo e rd P r is oo tri fs bu tio n Understanding Sociological Theory for Educational Practices Tania Ferfolja Criss Jones Díaz N Jacqueline Ullman 9781107477469pre_pi-xx.indd 3 09/03/15 8:25 PM 477 Williamstown Road, Port Melbourne, VIC 3207, Australia Cambridge University Press is part of the University of Cambridge. It furthers the University’s mission by disseminating knowledge in the pursuit of education, learning and research at the highest international levels of excellence. www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9781107477469 © Cambridge University Press 2015 This publication is copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published 2015 P ot ag fo e rd P r is oo tri fs bu tio n Cover designed by Sardine Designs Typeset by Integra Software Services Pvt. Ltd. Printed in Singapore by C.O.S Printers Pte Ltd A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library A Cataloguing-in-Publication entry is available from the catalogue of the National Library of Australia at www.nla.gov.au ISBN 978-1-107-47746-9 Paperback Reproduction and communication for educational purposes The Australian Copyright Act 1968 (the Act) allows a maximum of one chapter or 10% of the pages of this work, whichever is the greater, to be reproduced and/or communicated by any educational institution for its educational purposes provided that the educational institution (or the body that administers it) has given a remuneration notice to Copyright Agency Limited (CAL) under the Act. For details of the CAL licence for educational institutions contact: Copyright Agency Limited Level 15, 233 Castlereagh Street Sydney NSW 2000 Telephone: (02) 9394 7600 Facsimile: (02) 9394 7601 E-mail: info@copyright.com.au Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate. N Please be aware that this publication may contain several variations of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander terms and spellings; no disrespect is intended. Please note that the terms ‘Indigenous Australians’ and ‘Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ may be used interchangeably in this publication. Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world. (Nelson Mandela, former president of South Africa, 1993 Nobel Peace Prize laureate) 9781107477469pre_pi-xx.indd 4 09/03/15 8:25 PM CHAPTER 3 Regulating ‘gender climate’ P ot ag fo e rd P r is oo tri fs bu tio n Exploring the social construction of gender and sexuality in regional and rural Australian schools Jacqueline Ullman KEY WORDS: LGBTQI; hegemony; social construction; gender expression; marginalisation N When I irst starting dating my girlfriend that I am with now, there were these popular girls in my class who act ‘perfect’ and have the best boyfriends apparently . . . There were three teachers standing around either talking to students or each other. These girls actually came over and started throwing pieces of paper at me and they said things like ‘pussy licker’, ‘faggot’ and ‘go die’ . . . The biggest girl there started kicking me as I was sitting down and all I could feel was thumping in my ribs and legs. (15-year-old girl from regional New South Wales) A student drew penises all over my textbook while I was presenting an oral presentation and proceeded to cough the word ‘faggot’ during the applause . . . All of the other students (mainly male), besides my group of friends (all female), laughed at his comment and my friends stuck up for me while the teacher rolled her eyes and did nothing towards talking to him, telling him to ‘stop it’ or punishing him. After returning to my seat I showed my teacher my textbook and she replied, ‘Well just ignore it. We are past that subject anyway’. (16-year-old boy, early school leaver from outer regional Queensland) 39 9781107477469c03_p39-57.indd 39 09/03/15 6:19 PM 40 Part 1: Applying Poststructuralism(s) Introduction N P ot ag fo e rd P r is oo tri fs bu tio n The school experiences of same-sex attracted (SSA), transgender and gender nonconforming (TGNC) young people have received a great deal of attention in both the mainstream media and academic research in recent years. This increased awareness of the school-based marginalisation faced by some SSA and TGNC students, as well as the importance of supportive teachers, has prompted a number of Australian schools to adopt some degree of anti-homophobia education and to begin to make space for gay/straight alliances (GSAs) or ally groups. In contrast to a school environment historically characterised by the marginalisation and silencing of diverse sexualities and genders, this is a deinite move forward. Nevertheless, this style of program can be reductionist in nature, particularly if school-based inclusivity is limited to slogans of ‘equal rights’ and ‘zero-tolerance (for homophobia)’ or to various symbolic manifestations of support (such as rainbows or wearing purple on a particular day of the year1), which lack substance if situated as stand-alone content or single-day events. Discrimination against young people who identify as SSA may be neatly positioned as ‘homophobic’, prompting a clear-cut, uncomplicated teacher response (perhaps something along the lines of ‘We do not tolerate homophobic language at this school’). In contrast, addressing the everyday, informal and institutionalised marginalisation of students who express their gender outside of school-based norms, expression that may or may not exist alongside same-sex attraction, is less straightforward. Given that, at their core, homophobia and transphobia are constructed around conservative and essentialist notions of gender expression, it is crucial to link anti-homophobia/transphobia education to discussions about gender expression, gender roles, gender stereotypes and the ways in which culture and social context are linked to ‘natural’ and ‘unnatural’ expressions of gender. This chapter examines the reported school experiences of SSA and TGNC Australian teenagers from regional, rural and remote Australia to explore the impact of discourses2 of gender and sexuality. In particular, this chapter presents an analysis of data from the author’s national survey on gender climate in secondary schools, the Free2Be? project, using theories of gender and sexuality to guide interpretation. Although much research in gender and sexuality relies on qualitative methodologies, this chapter suggests that quantitative research can reveal large-scale patterns that have implications for the ways that schools are organised and for the work of teachers in supporting young people. To begin, this chapter contextualises sexual and gender diversity in schools, the impact of discriminatory practices on student outcomes, and regional/rural Australia as a location of interest for such study. Background School experiences of SSA and TGNC students Australian SSA and TGNC students report routine social isolation and marginalisation in secondary schools, perpetrated by both peers and school staff, with 9781107477469c03_p39-57.indd 40 09/03/15 6:19 PM Chapter 3: Regulating ‘gender climate’ 41 N P ot ag fo e rd P r is oo tri fs bu tio n recent research indicating that school-based homophobic and transphobic harassment impacts between 63% (Robinson, Bansel, Denson, Ovenden & Davies, 2014) and 80% (Hillier et al., 2010) of these young people. Overt forms of school-based marginalisation include verbal abuse, such as homophobic and transphobic slurs, physical intimidation and bullying, psychological intimidation, social isolation, spreading rumours and cyberbullying. These experiences are not only linked to SSA and TGNC students’ lowered sense of school belonging and connection to school (Pearson, Muller & Wilkinson, 2007), but also to diminished educational outcomes, including safety fears (Hillier, Turner & Mitchell, 2005), higher rates of absenteeism (Poteat & Espelage, 2007), dificulty concentrating at school (Blackburn, 2012; Robinson et al., 2014), and lower academic achievement (Kosciw, Palmer, Kull & Greytak, 2013). Social marginalisation of SSA and TGNC students is compounded by the lack of curricular mandates and policy requiring the explicit inclusion of diverse sexualities and genders within Australian schools (Duffy, Fontiatos, Smith & Burke, 2013; Ullman & Ferfolja, 2014), resulting in many schools remaining silent on these topics, even within the context of sexual health education (Smith et al., 2011). Where policy does reference diverse sexualities and genders, it can be problematic in and of itself, due to the implicit ways that it reinforces silences. (See Ferfolja, Chapter 4 in this volume, for a detailed examination of how institutional policy constructs identities in schools.) In a recent Australian national survey of 1032 young people identifying as SSA or TGNC, only 13% said that they had learned about samesex attraction in sex education, with 9% reporting having learned that people can experience different genders from their biological sex (Robinson et al., 2014). These numbers echo indings from a larger national survey, Writing Themselves In (Hillier et al., 2010), which surveyed 3134 SSA and TGNC young people and found that, while nearly 60% reported learning about heterosexual relationships at school, less than 20% reported learning about same-sex attraction. These concerns appear to be compounded for SSA and TGNC young people in regional and rural locations in Australia (Edwards, 2006; Robinson et al., 2014). In terms of negative emotional impact, alongside a lowered sense of safety while at school, the 2010 Writing Themselves In project found higher rates of self-harm, suicidal ideation and attempts for young people living in regional and rural areas, coupled with concerns about their future due to experiences of social isolation, discrimination and a lack of local services and support (Hillier et al., 2010). Young people from these locations described a dearth of visible lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and intersex (LGBTQI) community, as well as an air of secrecy surrounding diverse sexualities and genders related to fears of discrimination and violence. More recent indings reiterate this last point, with SSA and TGNC young people from regional and rural locations reporting dificulties meeting other samesex attracted and gender diverse people and having ‘no one to talk to about their sexuality or gender variance’ (Robinson et al., 2014, p. viii). While the social isolation experienced by regional, rural and remote Australian SSA and TGNC young people is partially inluenced by the basic statistical likelihood of smaller numbers of LGBTQI individuals in communities with smaller 9781107477469c03_p39-57.indd 41 09/03/15 6:19 PM 42 Part 1: Applying Poststructuralism(s) P ot ag fo e rd P r is oo tri fs bu tio n populations3, it is likely compounded by some of the social features of regional and rural Australia that are replicated in the school environment. In regional and rural areas, historically linked to agriculture and mining industries, heterosexual marriage and reproduction have represented the continuation and succession of the community (Bryant & Pini, 2011). Accordingly, rural spaces in Australia are ‘entrenched, deined, and performed as heterosexual spaces’ wherein ‘moral codes . . . community sanction, surveillance, and discipline’ are used to regulate sexual behaviours and maintain the ascendancy of heterosexual relationships (Bryant & Pini, 2011, p. 81). Likewise, regional and rural Australia is known for traditional and conservative views about gender roles (Pini, 2006; Alston, 2005), is highly patriarchal – with males as the primary authority in political, economic, family and social life (Campbell, Mayerfeld Bell & Finney, 2006) – and affords boys and men, in particular, a narrow range of socially acceptable expressions of masculinity (Gottschalk & Newton, 2003). The research project discussed in this chapter investigates the links between students’ school climate with regards to diverse sexualities and genders and their sense of wellbeing and connection to the school environment. The following sections outline theoretical concepts associated with the theory of social construction, which states, broadly, that individuals are active participants in the construction of their perceived social reality and that they co-construct various understandings of the world through repeated social afirmations. Social construction theory offers useful perspectives for understanding the value systems that circulate around gender and sexuality. Key theoretical concepts Gender as a social construction N Seen through the lens of social constructionist theory, gender is shaped by and through the society in which we live. Thus, rather than gender being positioned as innate and gender differences as genetically predetermined, ‘becoming’ male or female is viewed as a social process, learned through culture and culturally speciic (Kehily, 2002). Thus, socially acceptable expressions of gender are inluenced by multiple contextual factors, including family, religion, geographic location, media and many others. The dominant way that gender is constructed creates and maintains the notion that men and women are two distinct and fundamentally different groups of people. A crucial element of socially constructed gender difference is an implied (hetero) sexuality, where individuals are automatically perceived as being attracted to the opposite sex. Adrianne Rich famously coined this assumption as ‘compulsory heterosexuality’, described as a largely unspoken belief that serves to legitimise heterosexual sex and romantic relationships while simultaneously marginalising same-sex attraction (Rich, 1980, p. 623). This concept was extended by Judith Butler (1990), a feminist poststructural theorist, who coined the term ‘heterosexual matrix’ to 9781107477469c03_p39-57.indd 42 09/03/15 6:19 PM Chapter 3: Regulating ‘gender climate’ 43 N P ot ag fo e rd P r is oo tri fs bu tio n describe the socially constructed coherence between one’s biological sex, one’s gender and one’s assumed (hetero)sexuality. Individuals who do not conform to this set of linear relationships (i.e. sex = gender = sexuality), either because their biological sex does not ‘match’ their expressed gender or because they are sexually attracted to members of the same sex, challenge this assumption and are, accordingly, viewed as ‘unusual’. This framing, referred to as a binary opposition, constructs both heterosexual/homosexual and cisgender4/transgender subjects as dichotomous in nature, as opposites that are both mutually deining and mutually exclusive, negating the possibility for luidity of one’s expression of gender or sexuality. Binary relationships such as these are not value-free. Rather, there is a power dynamic inherent in the social construction of binaries, wherein each pair contains both a dominant and a subordinate position. (See Chapter 1 for a more in-depth discussion of power as a sociological concept.) This power dynamic features in the heterosexual/homosexual binary, where heterosexuality and heterosex are socially positioned as the ‘natural’ sexuality/sexual behaviour and provide the reference point from which all other sexualities are judged. The cisgender/transgender binary similarly relects a power differential and is linked to the constructed ‘correct’ way to express one’s biological sex via gender; deviations from this result in social marginalisation proportional to the degree of gender transgression relative to social context. Gender hegemony theory offers an explanation for this phenomenon, whereby particular forms of gender expression are viewed as acceptable, normal or better than others. At the heart of the concept of hegemony is the notion that the social order that it implies is largely accepted, even considered ‘common sense’ (Gramsci, 1971, as cited in McCormick, 2012), thus making inequities seem normal. Gender hegemony has been taken up by scholars to help understand the social boundaries of acceptable gender expression for men and women and which forms dominate the social order of gender. In her seminal theoretical critique of the dynamics of gender hierarchy, Connell (1995) coined the term ‘hegemonic masculinity’ to describe the prevailing ‘coniguration of gender practice . . . which guarantees (or is taken to guarantee) the dominant position of men and the subordination of women’ (p. 77). Inherent in this concept is the domination of particular kinds of masculinities – that is, those perceived as more feminine – and those men who embody these characteristics. Connell writes about subordinated masculinities as including gender non-conforming and samesex attracted men. By deinition, hegemonic masculinity allows for multiple forms of masculinity, but only one of these is dominant. The (asymmetrical) parallel for women was initially referred to as ‘emphasised femininity’ by Connell (1987, p. 183). However, more recent work with this concept (Shippers, 2007) has reclaimed the term ‘hegemonic femininity’, using it to account for the ascendancy of particular forms of femininity over other femininities to ‘serve the interests of the gender order and male domination’ (p. 94). As Shippers (2007) further explains: If hegemonic gender relations depend on the symbolic construction of desire for the feminine object, physical strength and authority as the characteristics that differentiate men from women and deine and legitimate their superiority and social 9781107477469c03_p39-57.indd 43 09/03/15 6:19 PM 44 Part 1: Applying Poststructuralism(s) dominance over women, then these characteristics must remain unavailable to women. To guarantee men’s exclusive access to these characteristics, other conigurations of feminine characteristics must be deined as deviant and stigmatised. (pp. 94–5, emphasis in original) Where hegemonic masculinity necessitates a subordinated masculinity, Shippers proposes the concept of ‘pariah femininities’ as a counter to hegemonic femininity (2007, p. 95). The term ‘pariah’ is preferred over ‘subordinate’ because the characteristics associated with this form of femininity are considered not so much inferior as they are contaminating to the relationship between masculinity and femininity (Shippers, 2007, p. 95). Thus, these characteristics, inclusive of women’s gender non-conformity and/or same-sex attraction, are viewed as socially undesirable, threatening and deserving of social sanction. P ot ag fo e rd P r is oo tri fs bu tio n Schools as gender/sexuality ‘construction sites’ N Social sanction, occurring via the naming and shaming of difference, is a key facet of the social construction of gender and sexuality in schools. Social construction ‘works’ via discourse, a particular way of speaking about someone or something that assigns that person or thing certain attributes and situates them/it in a particular social position. Homophobic utterances in the school context provide a useful working example of this phenomenon. When a student calls a male student a ‘poofter’ or ‘faggot’, for example, that student is tapping into a pre-existing discourse of socially acceptable forms of masculinity and employing a set of meanings wherein ‘faggot’ is constructed in contrast to heteromasculinity (Youdell, 2004) as its better, stronger and more socially successful (Richardson, 2010) opposite. The language invokes a power differential, whereby ‘faggot’ is positioned as lesser, socially distained and always in opposition to a hegemonic masculine exemplar. School-based homophobia and transphobia ‘do’ hegemonic masculinity and femininity, through the architecture of ‘border constructions’ (Richardson, 2010, p. 739) where young men and women publicly delineate what they are not as a way to highlight what they are, or at least what they think they ought to be (e.g. heterosexual and, therefore, ‘normal’). This gendered performance (Butler, 1990) scaffolds social arrangements wherein young men’s school-based homophobic practices are enacted and repeated to ‘create the illusion of a coherent heterosexual masculinity’ (Kehily, 2002, p. 45) and where compulsory heterosexuality functions as the ‘core ideology for social cohesion in adolescent girl groups’ (Durham, 2002, as cited in Payne, 2007, p. 61). Heterosexuality and the deployment of a homogeneous gender script for boys and girls is, therefore, lauded and branded as a ‘collective’ social achievement. We can incorporate classroom peers and teachers as additional social actors in this scene since, as Youdell (2004) writes, gender identities and the boundaries of what is socially un/acceptable are re/deined in daily social practices of schooling. Much informal learning regarding gender and sexuality occurs through social rewards and punishments, meted out by both teachers and students. Additionally, the typical Australian school implements a formal curriculum in which heterosexuality 9781107477469c03_p39-57.indd 44 09/03/15 6:19 PM Chapter 3: Regulating ‘gender climate’ 45 P ot ag fo e rd P r is oo tri fs bu tio n is relected as the ‘normal’, assumed sexuality for all and where explicit inclusion of diverse sexualities and genders is the exception rather than the rule. Marginalising pedagogical practices, including teachers’ failure to publicly and uniformly address homophobic and transphobic language in the classroom, stands out as an additional contributing factor (Ullman, 2014b). Hegemonic masculinity and femininity, including the boundaries of ‘subordinate masculinities’ and ‘pariah femininities’, is thus an explicit facet of the social learning inherent in K–12 schooling, leading Kehily (2002) to conclude that ‘schools can be seen as sites for the production of gendered/sexualised identities rather than agencies that passively relect dominant power relations’ (p. 50, emphasis in original). Failure to perform one’s gender ‘correctly’ often results in negative reinforcement since gender, particularly in schools, is governed by ‘clearly punitive and regulatory social conventions’ (Butler, 1988; p. 527). Schools enforce a clear ‘gender regime’ through organisational and interpersonal means, including formal and informal dress codes, language codes, the attribution of masculine or feminine qualities to key learning areas of the curriculum (Connell, 1996), the ‘policing’ of masculinities (Martino, 2000) and femininities, and a culture of compulsory heterosexuality (Toomey, McGuire & Russell, 2012). Social marginalisation, isolation and even physical bullying are justiied in such a setting where the gender/sexuality transgressor can be viewed as ‘worthy of punishment for having violated gender norms’ and where the enforcer can view him/herself as ‘rendering gender justice and reafirming the natural order of gender appropriate behaviour’ (Harry, 1992, p. 116, as cited in McCormack, 2012). Methodology Sample and measures N Framing gender as socially constructed, it follows on that nuances of this construction are dependent on the dynamics of the social location. Particular boundaries of masculinity and femininity are constructed and deployed differently in different geographic locales, with regional and rural Australia representing an often limiting space in terms of gender expression. Tyler and Fairbrother (2013) have theorised about a particular Australian rural hegemonic masculinity, characterised by physical strength, risk taking and ‘man against nature’, valorised as the ‘rural warrior hero’ (p. 115). Since gender is relational, it stands to reason that the Australian rural woman cannot or should not possess these same qualities (Tyler & Fairbrother, 2013). On a self-rating measure of gender-stereotypical characteristics, a survey of women from rural and remote towns in Australia rated themselves more highly on measures of ‘female characteristics’ (e.g. sensitive and emotional) and lower on measures of ‘male characteristics’ (e.g. superior and bossy) than women from urban centres (Bramston, Rodgers-Clark, Hegney & Bishop, 2000), relecting essentialist notions of gender difference. Thus, regional and rural Australia present an important location for the exploration of the ‘heterosexual matrix’ (Butler, 1990) via SSA and TGNC teenagers’ school experiences. 9781107477469c03_p39-57.indd 45 09/03/15 6:19 PM 46 Part 1: Applying Poststructuralism(s) N P ot ag fo e rd P r is oo tri fs bu tio n The data explored in this chapter are a subset of data from the author’s nationwide Free2Be? project, which explored the school experiences and related outcomes of 704 SSA and TGNC students from across Australia. Data were collected via an online survey with both closed and open-ended items wherein young people were asked about their teachers’ and classmates’ treatment of diverse sexualities and gender expression, both as curricular content within class-based lesson plans and in terms of social inclusivity or marginalisation. Measures included original items investigating ‘gender climate’ (Ullman, 2014b) that examined formal (i.e. organisationally enforced) and informal (i.e. socially enforced) ‘rules’ regarding students’ gender expression. Previously validated measures (Mikulsky, 2007) were used to explore other elements of school climate, including the frequency of various forms of homophobia and transphobia at school and teachers’ responses to such behaviours. Further, participants were asked about their sense of school wellbeing, connection, safety, and motivational outcomes using scale measures from the Attitudes Towards School Survey (DEECD, 2012), a measure of general academic self-concept from the ASCQII (Marsh, 1990), as well as other stand-alone items. Participants’ postal codes were used alongside the Accessibility/Remoteness Index of Australia (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2004) to identify young people living in regional, rural and remote areas of Australia, based upon proximity to urban centres with a population of 5000+. Outcomes for this participant cohort were examined using bivariate statistical analyses, including mean score comparisons (t-tests), correlations and chi-square tests, for the closed-ended survey items and thematic coding for analysis of the open-ended items (Saldana, 2009). Both quantitative and qualitative data were examined in light of the key theoretical concepts as outlined in the earlier sections of this chapter, particularly regarding social and curricular boundaries of acceptable and marginalised masculinities and femininities and links to sexual orientation. Participants were recruited using targeted advertising on social media (Facebook), where the recruitment post was speciically shown to Australian teens between the ages of 14 and 18 who were either (a) ‘interested in’ people of the same reported biological sex or (b) had ‘liked’ LGBTQI-related Facebook pages. According to Facebook tracking, the recruitment statement was posted on 37 568 individual Facebook pages, with 1292 young people clicking through to commence the survey (3.4% response rate). Of these, inal numbers were reduced to 704 useable surveys, with 213 of these being from young people from regional and rural Australia (30% of the sample) and all eight states and territories represented. Mirroring the larger sample, the majority of the sample were female (57%) and older, with 56.7% aged 16 and 17. Most of these young people identiied as gay (29%), bisexual (28%) or lesbian (23%), with young women being more likely to identify as bisexual than lesbian. A small number of regional and rural participants (n = 10, 5% of the sample) identiied as transgender or gender nonconforming, with ive additional participants electing not to nominate a gender preference. Eight regional and rural participants identiied as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander.) 9781107477469c03_p39-57.indd 46 09/03/15 6:19 PM Chapter 3: Regulating ‘gender climate’ 47 Analysis and discussion Marking the boundaries: Verbal and physical homophobia and transphobia N P ot ag fo e rd P r is oo tri fs bu tio n Students from regional and rural Australia were signiicantly more likely to report having heard transphobic language at school within the last month (65% regional/ rural students vs. 56% urban students on a yes/no item; x2(1) = .57, p < .05 compared to young people in or near urban centres. Likewise, these students were signiicantly more likely to have witnessed physical harassment of their classmates due to perceived non-heterosexuality or gender non-conformity within the last month (55% regional/rural students vs. 43% urban students on a yes/no item; x2(1) = 7.59, p < .01). While mean differences in the reported frequency of verbal homophobia, transphobia, physical harassment and teachers’ positive interventions in these instances were not statistically signiicantly different across the two cohorts, the regional and rural students reported higher percentages of extreme negative responses for ive of the six items that measured this element of school climate. In other words, larger numbers of regional and rural students reported that their classmates ‘always’ engaged in homophobic/transphobic behaviours and that their teachers ‘never’ intervened. Students’ responses to related open-ended items highlighted perceived teacher inaction, with 41% of responses from regional and rural youth describing instances of teachers ignoring homophobic or transphobic language, indicating that teachers did ‘nothing’, ‘didn’t care’ or ‘ignored it’. While nearly 30% of responses detailed teachers intervening to stop the behaviours or language, nearly every account featured teachers attending to the inappropriate timing (e.g. talking out of turn) or use of language, rather than their acknowledgement of the discourses informing the language. In other words, students were told to ‘stop’ or to ‘be quiet’ but teachers did not discuss homophobic/transphobic implications of the language or link its use to the active reproduction of normative expectations for gender and sexuality. Many responses highlighted the everyday nature of the deployment of such language as evidence of daily ‘border constructions’ (Richardson, 2010, p. 783), where (hetero) masculinities and (hetero) femininities are constructed, in no small part, by the repudiation of non-normative gender expressions. Likewise, the young people alluded to their teachers’ tacit acceptance of the daily violence of homophobic/ transphobic language due to the very nature of its frequency: People at my school call people ‘poofters’ and ‘fags’ all the time. When this happens, it’s just brushed off easily and no one seems to care. (16-year-old girl from very remote Western Australia) The teacher just carried on as though it was normal. It [homophobic language] happens every day. (17-year-old boy from regional New South Wales) 9781107477469c03_p39-57.indd 47 09/03/15 6:19 PM 48 Part 1: Applying Poststructuralism(s) Most troubling were the additional 37 responses (13%) in which teachers were described as actively supporting the homophobia/transphobia by ‘laughing along’, ‘smirking’, ‘joining in’ or otherwise using homophobic or transphobic language themselves, making visible teachers’ active participation in the social construction of the dominant gender order: P ot ag fo e rd P r is oo tri fs bu tio n Nothing happens. The teachers let it go, as if it is a cultural way of speaking to each other, as if the terms aren’t offensive to those who hear them, and to whom it affects. Teachers will often say the phrase ‘that’s gay’ themselves. (16-year-old girl from outer regional South Australia) Oficial discourses on diverse sexualities and genders: What’s happening in the classroom? N Participants were asked about the inclusion of LGBTQI people, history and current events as a topic of formal classroom learning, with less than a quarter of students nationwide reporting such education. SSA and TGNC students from regional and rural Australia were signiicantly less likely to report the inclusion of diverse sexualities and genders within the formal curriculum, (x2(2) = 12.72, p < .01), with 27% of the urban sample reporting such education compared to 14% of the regional/ rural sample. These silences were echoed in policy, with just 13% of regional and rural students conirming the inclusion of sexual orientation within their school’s anti-discrimination policy. Four additional items assessed teachers’ and classmates’ informal positivity towards or support of same-sex attracted and gender non-conforming individuals and associated conversation. On average, participants reported that their classmates and teachers were ‘hardly ever’5 positive about diverse genders and sexualities, with regional/rural students reporting signiicantly lower incidence of positivity than urban students across three of the four items. Considering the ways in which compulsory heterosexuality (Rich, 1980) and its associated cisgender ‘performances’ (Butler, 1990) are policed and positioned as a collective social achievement for students (Richardson, 2010), it is not surprising that the most profound differences across the rural and urban cohorts were related to perceived positivity from participants’ peers, rather than from their teachers. While teachers may scaffold students’ compulsory heterosexuality through their delivery of the formal curriculum, enforcement and communication of formal school policy, the informal conversations they are willing to have (and the others that they are not), it is the students themselves who are at the front lines of the ‘border construction’ (Richardson, 2010). Findings suggest tighter border control for young SSA and TGNC students in rural and regional settings, who report signiicantly less positivity from their peers regarding both same-sex attraction (urban average = 2.23 vs. regional/rural average = 1.99; t(692) = 2.91, p < .01) and gender non-conformity 9781107477469c03_p39-57.indd 48 09/03/15 6:19 PM Chapter 3: Regulating ‘gender climate’ 49 (urban average = 1.44 vs. regional/rural average = 1.17; t(692) = 3.17, p < .01). Likewise, indings speak to the greater social marginalisation generally reported by TGNC young people who, from the perspective of gender hegemony theory, step further outside the ‘border’ in their gender transgressions. Associated school wellbeing, connection and academic outcomes N P ot ag fo e rd P r is oo tri fs bu tio n Given teachers’ duty of care to both protect their students as well as provide equitable access to learning, investigating indicators of perceived protection and access provides important insight into the impact of schools’ active production of gendered and sexualised identities (Kehily, 2002) on SSA and TGNC students. In this investigation, students’ reported school wellbeing, school connection, motivational outcomes and academic self-concept6 were viewed as outcome variables, representative of perceived access, safety and connection to the school community. In line with indings related to school climate and gender climate, as detailed above, regional and rural SSA and TGNC students fared worse on every outcome measure than their urban peers, with average (mean) differences large enough to be statistically signiicant for six of the nine measures (bolded, see Table 3.1). Unsurprisingly, these measures of wellbeing, connection, safety and perceived teacher empathy were statistically signiicantly correlated with measures of school climate (Table 3.2) and gender climate (Table 3.3), with items related to perceived teacher actions (e.g. positive intervention) or expectations shown to have some of the strongest relationships to students’ school wellbeing and connection. Taking school morale as an example, measured here as feeling happy, relaxed and positive at school, these two tables highlight the link between regional and rural students’ positive school morale and (a) their perception that teachers positively intervene during instances of school-based homophobia and transphobia, (b) their perceptions that teachers and classmates hold less restrictive gender expectations, and (c) their perceptions about their ability to autonomously express their own gender identity without breaking school ‘rules’. With regards to gender expectations, as shown in Table 3.3, this relationship was more pronounced for young men in the group, pointing to stronger impact of these expectations on their school wellbeing and connection. Given the well-documented causal inluence of perceived teacher care on students’ academic outcomes (Wentzel, 2009), a inding that has been replicated with cohorts of Australian SSA and TGNC youth (Ullman, 2014a), it is especially disconcerting to see such a strong correlation between young men’s perceptions of their teachers’ gender expectations and perceived teacher empathy (r = 0.61, p < .01), measured as teachers’ care for the individual’s learning. Open-ended item responses relected the above signiicant relationships between school/gender climate and classroom wellbeing and connection. To an item asking regional/rural students to describe why they had chosen a particular class as their favourite, many described being ‘good at’ the subject, sharing the class with friends or simply ‘liking’ the subject. Other responses were more revealing; in just over half (52%) of the 192 closed-ended responses, students reported 9781107477469c03_p39-57.indd 49 09/03/15 6:19 PM 50 Part 1: Applying Poststructuralism(s) Table 3.1: Mean scores on school wellbeing, connection and motivational outcomes for urban and regional/rural students Location Regional/Rural (n = 213) t Df School moralea (5-item scale) 3.71 (1.40) 3.56 (1.28) 1.33 692 School distressb (6-item scale) 4.32 (1.40) 4.53 (1.47) −1.79 692 Teacher empathyc (7-item scale) 3.40 (0.92) 3.17 (0.94) 3.04** 692 Classmate social connectionc (5-item scale) 3.56 (0.85) 3.34 (0.97) 2.89** 692 School connection (general)c (5-item scale) 3.03 (1.11) 2.75 (1.09) 3.00** 692 Conidence in learningc (4-item scale) 3.48 (0.92) 3.32 (0.93) 2.13* 692 Motivation to learnc (4-item scale) 3.87 (0.94) 3.72 (0.98) 1.92 692 School safetyd (4-item scale) 2.62 (1.13) 2.97 (1.20) −3.69*** 692 Academic self-concepte (8-item scale) 3.36 (1.57) 3.77 (1.61) −3.00** 628 P ot ag fo e rd P r is oo tri fs bu tio n Urban (n = 481) a 7-point Likert scale measure, where higher numbers indicate higher morale b 7-point Likert scale measure, where higher numbers indicate higher distress c 5-point Likert scale measure, where higher numbers indicate more positive outcome d 5-point Likert scale measure, where higher numbers indicate less safe school environment e 8-point Likert scale measure, where higher numbers indicate lower academic self-concept Note: * = p ≤ .05; ** = p ≤ .01; *** = p ≤ .001. Standard deviations appear in parentheses below means. N Table 3.2: Pearson’s product moment correlations for school climate with school wellbeing, connection and safety outcomes for regional/rural students Verbal homophobia Freq. N = 203 School moralea (5-item scale) School distressb (6-item scale) 9781107477469c03_p39-57.indd 50 −.15* .22** Freq. teacher intervention N = 175 .43*** −.33*** Verbal transphobia Physical bullying Freq. Freq. N = 138 teacher intervention N = 86 Freq. Freq. N = 110 teacher intervention N = 110 −.08 −.14 .21* .21* −.22* .27** .19* −.13 09/03/15 6:19 PM Chapter 3: Regulating ‘gender climate’ Teacher empathyc (7-item scale) −.23** .42*** −.07 .29** −.12 .26** Classmate social connectionc (5-item scale) −.20** .30*** −.16 .13 −.33*** .16 School connection (general)c (5-item scale) −.28*** .44*** −.15 .19 −.16 .23* .40*** −.31*** School safetyd (5-item scale) .26** −.35** .41*** 51 −.16 a 7-point Likert scale measure, where higher numbers indicate higher morale P ot ag fo e rd P r is oo tri fs bu tio n b 7-point Likert scale measure, where higher numbers indicate higher distress c 5-point Likert scale, where higher numbers indicate more positive outcome d 5-point Likert scale measure, where higher numbers indicate a less safe school environment Note: * = p ≤ .05; ** = p ≤ .01; *** = p ≤ .001. Table 3.3: Pearson’s product moment correlations for selected gender-climate items with school wellbeing, connection and safety outcomes for regional/rural students Teachers’ gender expectationsa Student’s gender expectationsb Impact of rules on gender expressionc Males N = 76 Males N = 76 All rural/regional N = 213 .48* School distress (6-item scale) Females N = 122 .32*** .52*** −.43** −.40*** −.55*** Teacher empathy (7-item scale) .61** .44*** .47*** .27** .41*** Classmate social connection (5-item scale) .43** .40*** .38** .39*** .38*** School connection (general) (5-item scale) .51*** .42*** .55*** .40*** .38*** School safety (5-item scale) .50*** .38** .50*** .45*** .43*** N School morale (5-item scale) Females N = 122 .29** −.36*** .35*** −.42*** a Item read: ‘My teachers expect me to act a certain way because I am a girl/guy.’ b Item read: ‘Other students expect me to act a certain way because I am a girl/guy.’ c Item read: ‘Certain rules at my school make it hard for me to express my gender in the way I would like.’ Note: * = p ≤ .05; ** = p ≤ .01; *** = p ≤ .001. All gender-climate items measured using a nine-point Likert scale, with higher numbers indicating greater freedom of gender expression. 9781107477469c03_p39-57.indd 51 09/03/15 6:19 PM 52 Part 1: Applying Poststructuralism(s) that their favourite class was one in which they could be free to express themselves (59 responses), where they had a strong connection, either to their teacher (19 responses) or the students in the class (13 responses), or where they felt ‘relaxed’ or ‘calm’ because of a lack of peer or teacher marginalisation (eight responses). My teacher treated me just like every other person in the class, and did not hold back on [teaching me] ‘feminine’ dance moves as she didn’t care what gender or orientation I was – I was just a student. I could dance my heart out and not be laughed at or called names for the passion I put into the subject. (16-year-old boy from outer regional Queensland) N P ot ag fo e rd P r is oo tri fs bu tio n It is noteworthy that higher numbers of SSA and TGNC young people from regional/rural Australia reported leaving school prior to graduation (37.5% vs. 29.8%) and were signiicantly more likely to truant from school (x2(4) = 14.43, p < .01), with 18% of regional and rural students reporting truancy more than 10 times in the month that preceded survey completion as opposed to 10% of young people from urban centres who reported the same. Further, regional and rural young people were signiicantly less likely than their urban peers to say they would attend university (x2(6) = 13.03, p < .05), with almost half of the urban sample indicating that it was ‘very likely’ they would attend, compared to just 35% of the regional/rural sample. This inding was echoed in the signiicant mean difference in reported academic self-concept between the two cohorts (t (628) = –3.00, p < .01), with regional/ rural SSA and TGNC students’ average academic self-concept nearly half a point lower than that of urban students, measured using an eight-point Likert scale. Open-ended items highlighted this relationship; young people frequently spoke of excelling academically and enjoying most the classes in which they experienced teacher support and a lack of social harassment. Likewise, students’ descriptions of why they had truanted echoed this relationship; most cited harassment, active bullying related to sexuality and/or gender expression, and marginalisation by teachers as key reasons: I was scared to go into class, fearing that, because I have no friends to sit next to, people will ind it easier to pick on me. (14-year-old girl from regional New South Wales) My classmates make me uncomfortable. I don’t it in. It is more stress attending class than having to catch up on work. (16-year-old girl from outer regional Tasmania) I hate that class now because my teacher makes life dificult for me and the other gay person in my class . . . I also don’t feel that she cares about me or my results enough. (17-year-old girl from regional South Australia) 9781107477469c03_p39-57.indd 52 09/03/15 6:19 PM Chapter 3: Regulating ‘gender climate’ 53 Implications P ot ag fo e rd P r is oo tri fs bu tio n While a focus on zero-tolerance strategies for homophobia and transphobia might go part of the way to silencing students’ use of such language, these approaches alone cannot account for the powerful social forces that drive the marginalisation of SSA and TGNC individuals. While the inclusion of LGBTQI perspectives in the oficial K–12 curriculum is an important step in increasing visibility and normalisation, it is not enough. Simply disallowing homophobic and transphobic language and mandating a reductionist anti-homophobia education (see Ferfolja & Ullman, 2014, for a critique of this framing within the new national Health and Physical Education syllabus) cannot deconstruct the dominant discourses that surround same-sex attraction and gender non-conformity in schools. To get to the heart of the issue – the gendered expectations that delineate the boundaries between ‘normal’ and ‘different’ ways of doing gender and eliminate luidity of gender expression – educators must be able to discuss with their students, and must themselves understand, the ways in which everyday instances of gender policing construct the social hierarchy and relect dominant discourses related to gender and sexuality of both the non-normative/subordinate/pariah and the hegemonic ideal. To do this, teachers must be able to recognise gender policing when they see it, from students, colleagues, in the mandated curriculum and within their own pedagogical practices – present not only in the easily identiied linguistic forms of homophobia and transphobia, but also in the more mundane organisational elements of formal school life. Educators must be able to identify how curricular inclusions and exclusions, institutional policies and school ‘rules’ function to reproduce social inequities related to gender expression and support the marginalisation of SSA and TGNC students. The sum total of school gender climate has the potential to validate or alienate these and all students, to encourage their sense of belonging and their motivation to succeed at school or to systematically exclude them from the school community and its educational pursuits. • • • N Considerations Many SSA and TGNC young people report that their teachers do not identify the homophobic or transphobic discourses present in the language used by their classmates. How does this contribute to the social construction of gender and sexuality at the school level? Australian society by and large would not support educators holding racist or sexist viewpoints, yet some would defend teachers’ homophobic or transphobic beliefs as a moral or religious right. Should teachers have a right to these beliefs and how might these beliefs manifest in the classroom in ways that impact student wellbeing? How do discourses of gender essentialism impact on the school experiences of all students, not just those who identify as SSA or TGNC? 9781107477469c03_p39-57.indd 53 09/03/15 6:19 PM 54 Part 1: Applying Poststructuralism(s) Of interest • • P ot ag fo e rd P r is oo tri fs bu tio n • Safe Schools Coalition. This program creates and disseminates tools, resources and support to enable Australian schools to support the safety and inclusivity of students with diverse genders and sexualities. See http:// www.safeschoolscoalition.org.au. ‘How to support sexual diversity in schools’. This checklist has been designed by the Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society (ARCSHS) to help schools self-evaluate their efforts to support the wellbeing of students with diverse genders and sexualities. See http://www.latrobe.edu.au/arcshs/ downloads/arcshs-research-publications/SexualDiversityChecklist.pdf. The Queering Education Research Institute (QuERI). This independent think tank and research initiative aims to bridge the gap between research and practice in the teaching of LGBTQ students, the creation of LGBTQ youth afirming environments and LGBTQ youth serving programs. See http://www. queeringeducation.org. References Alston, M. (2005). Gender perspectives in Australian rural community life. In C. Cocklin & J. Dibden (Eds.), Sustainability and change in rural Australia (pp. 139–56). Sydney: University of New South Wales Press. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2004). Rural, regional and remote health: A guide to remoteness classiications. AIHW cat. no. PHE 53. Canberra: Author. Blackburn, M. (2012). Interrupting hate: Homophobia in schools and what literacy can do about it. New York: Teachers College Press. N Bramston, P., Rodgers-Clark, C., Hegney, D. & Bishop, J. (2000). Gender roles and geographic location as predictors of emotional distress in Australian women. Australian Journal of Rural Health, 8, 154–60. doi:10.1046/j.14401584.2000.00272.x Bryant, L. & Pini, B. (2011). Gender and rurality. London: Routledge. Butler, J. (1988). Performative acts and gender constitution. Theatre Journal, 40(4), 519–31. doi:10.2307/3207893 —— (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge. Campbell, H., Mayerfeld Bell, M. & Finney, M. (2006). Masculinity and rural life: An introduction. In H. Campbell, M. Mayerfeld Bell & M. Finney (Eds.), Country boys: Masculinity and rural life (pp. 1–26). University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press. 9781107477469c03_p39-57.indd 54 09/03/15 6:19 PM Chapter 3: Regulating ‘gender climate’ 55 Connell, R. W. (1987). Gender and power: Society, the person and sexuality politics. Cambridge: Polity. —— (1995). Masculinities. Berkeley: University of California Press. —— (1996). Teaching the boys: New research on masculinity and gender strategies for schools. Teachers College Record, 98(2), 206–35. Department of Education and Early Childhood Development (DEECD) (2012). Attitudes towards school survey. Melbourne: Author. Duffy, B., Fotinatos, N., Smith, A. & Burke, J. (2013). Puberty, health and sexual education in Australian regional primary schools: Year 5 and 6 teacher perceptions. Sex Education, 13(2), 186–213. doi:10.1080/14681811.2012.678324 P ot ag fo e rd P r is oo tri fs bu tio n Edwards, J. (2006). Coming out alone: An assessment of the needs of same sex attracted youth, their families, and service providers in Western Australia. Perth: Trinity Outreach Services. Ferfolja, T. & Ullman, J. (2014). Opportunity lost or (re)written out: LGBTI content in Australia’s new national Health and Physical Education curriculum. In M. Somerville & S. Gannon (Eds.), Contemporary issues of equity in education (pp. 69–87). London: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Gottschalk, L. & Newton, J. (2003). Not so gay in the bush: ‘Coming out’ in regional and rural Victoria. Ballarat: University of Ballarat, Department of Human Services, Grampians Region. Hillier, L., Jones, T., Monagle, M., Overton, N., Gahan, L., Blackman, J. & Mitchell, A. (2010). Writing themselves in 3 (WTi3): The third national study on the sexual health and wellbeing of same sex attracted and gender questioning young people. Melbourne: Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society, La Trobe University. Hillier, L., Turner, A. & Mitchell, A. (2005). Writing themselves in again: 6 years on: The second national report on the sexuality, health and well-being of same sex attracted young people in Australia (Monograph series No. 50). Melbourne: Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society, La Trobe University. Kehily, M. (2002). Sexuality, gender and schooling: Shifting agendas in social learning. London: Routledge. N Kosciw, J., Palmer, N., Kull, R. & Greytak, E. (2013). The effect of negative school climate on academic outcomes for LGBT youth and the role of in-school supports. Journal of School Violence, 12(1), 45–63. doi:10.1080/15388220.2012.732546 McCormack, M. (2012). The declining signiicance of homophobia: How teenage boys are redeining masculinity and heterosexuality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Marsh, H. (1990). The structure of academic self-concept: The Marsh/Shavelson Model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(4), 623–36. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.82.4.623 Martino, W. (2000). Policing masculinities: Investigating the role of homophobia and heteronormativity in the lives of adolescent school boys. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 8(2), 213–36. doi:10.3149/jms.0802.213 9781107477469c03_p39-57.indd 55 09/03/15 6:19 PM 56 Part 1: Applying Poststructuralism(s) Mikulsky, J. (2007). ‘In or “out?”’: An examination of the effects of school climate on same-sex attracted students in Australia. Doctoral dissertation. Retrieved from University of Sydney Digital Theses (Open Access). Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/2123/1969 Mitchell, A., Patrick, K., Heywood, W., Blackman, P. & Pitts, M. (2014). 5th national survey of Australian secondary students and sexual health 2013 (ARCSHS Monograph Series No. 97). Melbourne: Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society, La Trobe University. Payne, E. (2007). Heterosexism, perfection, and popularity: Young lesbians’ experiences of the high school social scene. Educational Studies: A Journal of the American Educational Studies Association, 41(1), 60–79. doi:10.1080/00131940701309054 P ot ag fo e rd P r is oo tri fs bu tio n Pearson, J., Muller, C. & Wilkinson, L. (2007). Adolescent same-sex attraction and academic outcomes: The role of school attachment and engagement. Social Problems, 54(4), 523–42. doi:10.1525/sp.2007.54.4.523 Pini, B. (2006). A critique of ‘new’ rural local governance: The case of gender in a rural Australia setting. Journal of Rural Studies, 22(4), 396–408. doi:10.1016/j. jrurstud.2006.02.002 Poteat, V. P. & Espelage, D. L. (2007). Predicting psychosocial consequences of homophobic victimization in middle school students. Journal of Early Adolescence, 27, 175–91. doi:10.1177/0272431606294839 Rich, A. (1980). Compulsory heterosexuality and lesbian existence. Signs, 5(4), 631–60. doi:10.1086/493756 Richardson, D. (2010). Youth masculinities: Compelling male heterosexuality. The British Journal of Sociology, 61(4), 737–56. doi:10.1111/j.1468-4446.2010.01339.x Robinson, K. H., Bansel, P., Denson, N., Ovenden, G. & Davies, C. (2014). Growing up queer: Issues facing young Australians who are gender variant and sexuality diverse. Melbourne: Young and Well Cooperative Research Centre. Saldana, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Phoenix: Sage Publications. N Shippers, M. (2007). Recovering the feminine other: Masculinity, femininity and gender hegemony. Theory and Society, 36(1), 85–102. doi:10.1007/s11186-007-9022-4 Smith, A., Schlichthorst, M., Mitchell, A., Walsh, J., Lyons, A., Blackman, P. & Pitts, M. (2011). Sexuality education in Australian secondary schools 2010. Monograph Series No. 80. Melbourne: Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society, La Trobe University. Toomey, R., McGuire, J. & Russell, S. (2012). Heteronormativity, school climates, and perceived safety for gender non-conforming peers. Journal of Adolescence, 35, 187–96. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2011.03.001 Tyler, M. & Fairbrother, P. (2013). Bushires and ‘men’s business’: The importance of gender and rural hegemonic masculinity. Journal of Rural Studies, 30, 110–19. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2013.01.002 9781107477469c03_p39-57.indd 56 09/03/15 6:19 PM Chapter 3: Regulating ‘gender climate’ 57 Ullman, J. (2014a). ‘At-risk’ or school-based risk?: Testing a model of school-based stressors, coping responses, and academic self-concept for same-sex attracted youth. Journal of Youth Studies. Advance online publication. doi:10. 1080/13676261.2014.963539 —— (2014b). Ladylike/butch, sporty/dapper: Exploring ‘gender climate’ with Australian LGBTQ students using Stage-Environment Fit Theory. Sex Education, 14(4), 430–43. doi:10.1080/14681811.2014.919912 Ullman, J. & Ferfolja, T. (2014). Bureaucratic constructions of sexual diversity: ‘Sensitive’, ‘controversial’ and silencing. Teaching Education. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/10476210.2014.959487 Wentzel, K. (2009). Students’ relationships with teachers as motivational contexts. In K. Wentzel & A. Wigield (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 301–22). Mahwah, NJ: LEA. Notes P ot ag fo e rd P r is oo tri fs bu tio n Youdell, D. (2004). Wounds and reinscriptions: Schools, sexualities and performative subjects. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 25(4), 477–93. doi:10.1080/0159630042000290973 N 1. I am referring here to the Wear It Purple Day, wherein staff and students wear purple wristbands or clothing to demonstrate support of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and intersex (LGBTQI) individuals. 2. See Chapter 1 for an in-depth presentation of discourse as a theoretical concept. 3. In a recent national survey of Australian secondary school students aged 16–19 (Mitchell, Patrick, Heywood, Blackman & Pitts, 2014), 12.8% of males and 19.3% of females indicated that they were attracted to members of the same sex. 4. Cisgender refers to an individual whose gender identity is aligned with their biological sex (e.g. a biological male with a male gender identity). 5. All four items measured on a 5-point Likert scale with points: ‘Never’ (0), ‘Hardly ever’ (1), ‘Some of the time’ (2), ‘Most of the time’ (3) and ‘Always’ (4). 6. These variables were measured by the ATSS (DEECD, 2012) and the ASDQII (Marsh, 1990). 9781107477469c03_p39-57.indd 57 09/03/15 6:19 PM