The Changing Social Construction of Transgender Students
In their November 4 meeting, the Utah State Board of Education (USBE) voted to pause a policy proposal centering around student name and pronoun use in the classroom. The proposal, titled “Understanding Gender Identity to Better Support Students” aimed to give Utah educators and local education agencies (LEAs) clear instructions on how to balance parental rights and child wellbeing in a school environment. Setting aside the challenges of crafting such a policy, the fact that the school board perceives such a policy as necessary indicates that we are currently in the middle of a cultural shift in the social standing of transgender students.
The rights and privileges of transgender students are a hotly debated topic in Utah and many similarly conservative states across the country. In the last State Legislative session, two bills were presented addressing the rights of transgender youth in our society. House Bill 92 would have prohibited transgender children from accessing medical care that affirmed their gender identity, while House Bill 302 aimed to ban transgender girls in K-12 and college from participating in school sports. These two bills in particular are the result of a diffusion of policy — Policy Diffusion Theory postulates that governments emulate policies or programs that were previously adopted by similar jurisdictions — as many other conservative states had similar bills in their most recent legislative sessions. However, the political culture that creates space for these types of legislation and the policies created by the USBE can be better viewed as a result of Social Construction and Policy Design Theory, or “Social Construction Theory” for short.
Social Construction Theory postulates that policies distribute benefits and burdens to groups in society based on the social construction of those groups. However, transgender youth sit in an unusual space in our societal construction. While children are nearly always a rallying point for policy benefits from all policymakers, transgender youth have been saddled with burdens in school bathrooms, medical service stipulations, and sports arena regulations. This juxtaposition of restrictive and negative policies placed on our valued children can be best explained by the social construction of transgender individuals as misfits or deviants. Utah’s majority conservative and family-oriented fabrication makes Social Construction Theory an ideal way to understand the policies aimed at hindering transgender individuals. However, the fervor of debate surrounding the Utah School Board proposal suggests that society may be rethinking our construction of transgender individuals.
Social Construction Theory
In a high school psychology course that Sarah (one of this essay’s authors) teaches, a favored lesson requires students to do a brief comparison between cultural norms in Japan and the United States. To help illustrate some key differences, two videos are shown. The first is one that students may be culturally more familiar with, an NYC subway station during rush hour. It’s nothing short of pure chaos; there is yelling, pushing, and no attempt to create any flow of traffic, it’s perfect. The second video similarly features a train station during rush hour, but this time in Japan. The contrast couldn’t be more apparent and the kids pick up on it. What the kids begin to realize is that the difference between the United States and Japan goes far beyond simply living in a different geographic region. The differences exist because each society has constructed a different set of norms and morals that they value above others and that when adhered to create the reality of two very distinct cultures.
What these students are seeing is what modern sociologists refer to as the Social Construction of Reality. In essence, the theory supposes that society, particularly the norms, morals, and values, that dictate typical interactions, develop as a result of what people assume about how the world does or should work. Fundamentally this theory implies that everything in which a society or culture values has been constructed through assumptions about the world as opposed to some great natural law, like one might learn in a physics course.
The Social Construction view of the world can transcend every layer of society. Public policy theorists Anne Schneider and Helen Ingram suggest that one way of understanding how policy is designed is to look at the social construction of target groups. Viewing policy through this lens, Schneider and Ingram explain, “policies typically carve out certain populations to receive benefits or burdens and often embed positive or negative social constructions.” These positive and negative social constructions are the product of stereotypes and prejudices associated with particular groups. This creates a clear social dynamic between the groups that are publicly favored, what sociologies might refer to as in-groups, and those groups that are scorned, the out-groups. Just as citizens of Japan and the United States value different conduct when riding public transport, those who are considered part of the in-group vs. out-group can also vary by location.
In addition to their potential popularity rating, these groups will also experience different degrees of political power. Reason would suggest that the amount of political power awarded to various groups would be based on their estimated value to society. Along these same lines, benefits and burdens associated with given policies would be granted accordingly. Such conclusions are only partially correct, as the diagram below illustrates.
The theory instead suggests that society constructs four main policy target types, all of which both shape and are impacted by policy design:
- Advantaged: Members of this group enjoy high political power as well as the high regard of the society. As a result, they typically reap the greatest benefits of a policy, with minimal burdens.
- Dependents: These groups are generally viewed positively within their society, however, they do not share the same political power as the advantaged. As a result, a policy may be designed with the intention of providing benefits to this group, but more frequently results in unintended burdens.
- Contenders: This group is often made up of those who have high political power despite being viewed unfavorably. Their political power allows them to design policy that will ultimately benefit them, however, symbolic burdens may be implied in an effort to gain approval.
- Deviants: Groups in this category are those who lack both political power and social popularity. Few policies will attempt to provide any sort of real or symbolic benefits. These groups are more likely to be the receivers of intentional burdens as a result of certain policies.
Transgender Individuals in Utah Culture
At the center of the School Board policy discussion is a Utah statute on parental rights, which states that “It is the public policy of this state that parents retain the fundamental right and duty to exercise primary control over the care, supervision, upbringing, and education of their children.” The State Board of Education argues that when teachers use a student’s preferred name without informing their parent, educators are violating the parental right to have primary supervision of their child. However, the Board clearly recognizes the impossible balance of using this policy in such a way, as there is always risk involved in accidentally outing a transgender student to their parent. Additionally, if teachers are required to report transgender students to potentially unsupportive parents, these gender non-conforming students will no longer have a safe space to be themselves. This puts educators in a position where students may no longer trust them to build meaningful relationships that reflect their true selves.
Anti-trans legislation is not the only social marker that exemplifies where transgender students stand in Utah’s social construction. In February of last school year, Murray School District suspended its diversity book program after a teacher read “Call Me Max”, a story about a transgender boy, to her class. The kerfuffle started after a third-grader brought “Call Me Max” to school to be read as part of Murray’s diversity book program. After school that day, many students returned home and shared what they had learned with their parents. Parents called the school district outraged that they had not been warned about the topic of the book in advance. In response, Murray School District told The Salt Lake Tribune that the teacher “flat out made a mistake” and the book “is not appropriate at the grade level it was being shared.” In response to Murray’s lack of support for its educators, the group Friends, Allies, and Mentors (FAM) held a rally at the Utah Capitol building a few months later to show support for transgender students and educators.
Controversies like this demonstrate the standing that transgender students hold in Utah society. Murray’s equity book bundles included books showing many diverse protagonists, but there were no books showing support for transgender students. This stance is not unique to Murray School District. Along Utah’s Wasatch Front — the state’s most populated area — four of the five largest school districts have no policy that specifically addresses gender inclusivity in schools.
Many of the social constructions fabricated in Utah can be traced back to the demographics of the state. Utah has a fairly conservative population, with over 45% of the state identifying as Republican as of October 2019. Statistically, individuals affiliated with the Republican party are more likely to consider sex to be determined at birth and to think that society has gone too far in accepting transgender people.
Additionally, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints make up roughly 55% of the state population. This is particularly noteworthy, as “The Family Proclamation”, a key church doctrine, teaches that: “All human beings — male and female — are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.” Though the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has an entire section of its website dedicated to understanding and loving transgender members, the Church makes it clear that transitioning will result in restrictions of Church membership.
Taken together, these attitudes towards transgender individuals create a culture where lawmakers view transgender students as not deserving of the same rights and privileges as their cis-gendered peers. In fact, transgender students across the country, but especially in conservative states, face disproportionate burdens that impact their education and their lives. These children are more likely to face harassment at school and are more likely to be homeless due to disownment by or self-emancipation from unsupportive families. This crisis is amplified in Utah’s heavily conservative and religious climate.
Social Construction Theory and Transgender Policy in Utah
The possible roles within Social Construction Theory do not change. Where policy is designed there will always be those who are the advantaged, the dependents, the contenders, and the deviants. The political climate of different regions and different time periods may, however, result in a unique assumption of roles by different groups. The ongoing debate in the State of Utah has brought immense attention to educational policies regarding the rights and privileges of transgender students and the right and privileges of parents. This debate demonstrates that the social construction of transgender students in Utah is not settled, but is in fact constantly changing.
Transgender Individuals
In Utah, there are actors with clear advantages and disadvantages. The conservative and Christian leanings of the state, coupled with the recent history of anti-transgender legislation and policy, indicate that up to this point transgender students have fallen squarely into the deviant category of the Social Construction and Policy Design theory. Transgender students have very little political power — as do most students — and are often negatively perceived by a majority cis-gendered populace. They are therefore the recipients of many burdens, both socially and politically, including proposed legislation that dictates their participation in sports and access to medical care. The National Center for Transgender Equality reports that 82% of students in Utah who were perceived as transgender experienced some form of mistreatment during their time in K-12 schools. Additionally, transgender students are more likely to be bullied and attempt suicide than their cis-gendered peers.
Families
In the opposing social construction category stand the strongly advantaged, cis-gendered, white families of Utah. Utah policymakers have made it clear that the family is the most important unit of a functioning society. This is of course consistent with the views expressed by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in their Family Proclamation, which makes sense as 86% of Utah State lawmakers belong to the Church. This advantage is made particularly clear by the way the Utah State Board of Education (USBE) is using a minimally related family privilege statute to create a policy regarding student name use in classrooms. By focusing on the family and parents as the most privileged members of society, USBE is providing benefits to parents while increasing burdens for teachers and transgender students.
Children
Interestingly, students in general typically fall into the dependents category of social construction. Children are often seen as having little political power but are well-liked by a family-oriented society. Policymakers are happy to give children and students many positive benefits, especially if those benefits spill over to their voting-age parents. However, in the current Utah policy climate, there appears to be a mismatch in the social construction of transgender students. While students themselves often get benefits, policymakers are trying to strip rights and benefits from transgender students. This presents an interesting challenge for the Utah State Board of Education members currently crafting a policy that will affect children and transgender individuals. The USBE is attempting to walk a tight-rope of supporting advantaged and dependent children and their families while assigning what they perceive as appropriate burdens to transgender individuals.
Educators
Regardless of which level of government drafts the policy, other actors will ultimately be responsible for adhering to and implementing it. In the case of transgender policies, school administrators and teachers will be tasked with implementing these policies. While the public generally views educators in a positive light, educators have relatively little power to influence or change ineffective policies. Organizations meant to provide greater voice and political leverage, such as unions, are notoriously ineffective in the state of Utah due to limited participation. While legislators and members of USBE may experience public pushback on controversial issues and policies, teachers and administrators are those who will ultimately have to deal with inevitable conflicts associated with implementation. The reality of the situation experienced by teachers and administrators places them firmly in the category of dependents in the Social Construction Framework.
Despite not fitting neatly into one of the above categories our policymakers are a key group whose perspective must be acknowledged. The key policymakers in this situation are the members of the Utah State Board of Education (USBE), however, it is important to note the role that state legislators have played as well. The statute that has served as the inspiration for USBE’s current policy was passed by state legislators during the last legislative season. Although the statute indicated no requirement for a state policy regarding how gender identity is addressed in schools, the USBE has determined that the statute has justified discussions regarding such a policy.
At the state level, members of the USBE have the unique ability to determine to what degree they want to be burdened with actually establishing a policy regarding the rights of transgender youth. A recent memo indicates that the USBE is currently weighing options beyond simply passing their current draft of Gender Identity Guidance for Utah Public Education. Additional options could require local educational agencies to draft their own guidelines and policies, essentially shifting the burden of responsibility. Regardless of USBE’s decision, it will be interesting to see whether the state legislature addresses similar policies or topics in their next legislative session.
Impact on Educators
If this policy on chosen names and pronouns passes, it has the potential to put educators in a quagmire. As dependents in this policy process, educators have limited political power, and therefore little leverage in the decision-making process. Therefore, educators will have little choice but to implement state policies, regardless of personal feelings or ethical conflicts.
A classroom should by no means become a soapbox for educators to share or encourage specific political beliefs. There have been numerous examples, including the recent viral video of a teacher at Lehi High School, of how such behavior can go against the mission of making schools a positive and supportive learning environment. The primary issue that educators will face if the current draft passes is not an issue of politics, but rather they will be expected to comply with a policy that fundamentally goes against their training.
Before they ever step foot in a classroom, prospective educators attending one of Utah’s major universities, including BYU, UVU, USU, or the University of Utah, will be required to take a course on Multicultural Education. A regular fixture in these courses is the book Is Everyone Really Equal? which serves as a handbook on social justice education targeted towards educators. A particularly poignant section provides the following counsel for educators in how to be an ally for their students. “Validating and supporting people who are socially or institutionally minoritized in relation to you, regardless of whether you completely agree or understand where they are coming from.” Following a similar message, individual schools have also sought to build a culture of validation, support, and acceptance amongst their student bodies. Provo High School over the last 3 years has implemented policies emphasizing a series of core values. One of these core values includes the concept of Inclusion, defined by the school as “build[ing] empathy and respect for all people and perspectives.”
The proposed guidance included in the current draft of Gender Identity Guidance for Utah Public Education, adds barriers to teacher and administrator efforts to make schools an inclusive environment. The draft provides potentially contradictory guidance on how educators should address the needs and requests of transgender youth. The accepted practice would suggest that when a student requests to go by something other than a name provided on the roll, educators should acquiesce to the request. Knowing and addressing a student by the name or title they are most comfortable with is one of the first things that allows educators to form respectful and positive relationships with their students. Proposed changes to this practice would instead require educators to receive parental consent, before acknowledging a student’s preferred name or pronouns. Failure to comply with state guidance could lead to disciplinary action or potential lawsuits. Regardless of a teacher’s political alliance or personal feelings regarding LGBTQIA+ issues, a policy of this nature would require teachers to behave in ways that solidify social constructions.
How We Move Forward
Transgender students in Utah face a precarious situation. Although they are children, a group generally favored and valued in society, their gender identity can result in them being ostracized or viewed as deviants to traditional values and cultural norms. Developing a policy that limits the ability of educators to acknowledge a student’s identity can indicate that — despite being a student and child — being transgender is something that will limit their ability to be included in a school environment. These types of policies ultimately cement their status as social and political deviants. The USBE’s ultimate decision on this policy will dictate how transgender students are codified in society — both within the classroom and outside of it.
