Introduction

Within some jurisdictions, addressing gender, especially gender diversity, has become a contentious issue in Australian schools in recent times. This is largely reflective of a growing proactive global conservative and anti-trans movement that has been especially influential in the field of school education (Branigin & Kirkpatrick, 2022; Topping, 2023). In Australia, the controversy associated with the national Safe Schools initiative is an example of the impact of this movement (Law, 2017; Ward, 2017). The national Safe Schools initiative aimed to improve the inclusivity of gender and sexuality diverse young people in schools by addressing homophobia and transphobia prevalent in school environments. Opposition to the national Safe Schools initiative was based on perspectives that it was indoctrinating young people, who are easily led (Thompson, 2019). This nationwide initiative commenced in 2013 but after receiving substantial conservative community and media hostility between 2015 and 2016, the federal government ceased its funding in 2016. Today, the Victorian Government is the only state funding and continuing a Safe Schools programme.

The conservative and anti-trans movements have been fuelled by an increase in young people ‘coming out’ as transgender (trans), non-binary, or choosing to express their gender identities in more fluid ways than stipulated within binary gender (male/female) norms. Being transgender, gender-diverse or non-binary was considered by critics of the Safe Schools initiative as a ‘contagion’ from which young people needed protection, a point refuted by research and the Australian Psychological Society (APS, 2019; Turban et al., 2022). Schools have been seen to be at the centre of this phenomenon in which certain teachers, especially those in student support roles, are being accused of ‘peddling’ gender ideology to young people that reinforces gender fluidity (Aitchison, 2023; Raphael, 2021). Addressing gender diversity with young people was considered by critics to be the responsibility of parents, with any such discussions in schools viewed as a violation of parental rights. The moral panicFootnote 1 which has ensued around the national Safe Schools initiative resulted in a censoring of gender diversity related discussions in schools in certain jurisdictions, which were considered by some conservative politicians and parents as ‘dangerous’ and ‘confusing’ for young people (Law, 2017). However, recent research with Australian parents demonstrated most parents participating in the study overwhelmingly supported schools addressing gender and gender diversity (and sexuality) with their children (Ferfolja & Ullman, 2022).

Based on qualitative research, this paper explores young people’s understandings of gender and gender identity, as well as their gendered experiences in high schools. Despite the attempts to silence and marginalise gender in schools, the findings from this research highlight a number of significant issues that we address in this paper: firstly, young people are leading changes in understandings and expressions of gender in contemporary times in Australia; secondly, there is an obvious generational divide between young people’s perceptions and expressions of gender and those of many adults, with many young people critical of the rigid boundaries imposed by binary gender; thirdly, despite the lack of formal engagement in high schools about gender issues, young people are critically aware of gendered experiences and associated inequalities and are active in addressing gender in their schools and in the socio-cultural environments in which they live, and educating their parents and teachers about new ways to think about gender. Finally, young people are developing their own understandings and ideas of gender, as well as ‘re-working language to suit individual experiences that are not confined to singular pre-existing categories’ (Hanckel & Shepherd, 2023, p. 1). The paper concludes with recommendations for schools based on these findings.

Background—political climate

As mentioned in the introduction, the study on which this paper is based was conducted during a period of significant political and social upheaval associated with gender-related issues in Australia and globally. The toxic environment that was generated by political and media commentary, especially associated with the national Safe Schools initiative, has impacted school policies and practices related to addressing gender, especially transgender and gender diversity inclusion in schools. However, schools are the responsibility of each state and territory, resulting in different policies and practices across the country. Some states and territories have more inclusive educational policies around gender-related issues than others. For example, Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) are more progressive relative to the neighbouring state of New South Wales (NSW) (Browne, 2019; Jones & Hillier, 2012).

In 2020, NSW conservative politicians sought to prohibit the teaching of gender, gender diversity or ‘gender fluidity’ in schools through a proposed Education Legislation Amendment (Parental Rights) Bill. This Bill had the support from a range of religious-affiliated education departments, parent organisations, as well as individual religious leaders. The proposed Bill in NSW followed a climate of Australian federal government political planning to appease religious conservatives after the legalisation of same-sex marriage in 2017 (Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Act, 2017). Following the amendment to the Marriage Act 2017, members of the federal Coalition government worked to introduce ‘sensible religious protections’ for people to ‘express their view’ about marriage and ‘proper parental protections’ to allow them to opt their child/children out of education programmes such as Safe Schools (an anti-bullying programme) (Peter Dutton quoted in Karp, 2017, para 4).

In 2022, again at the federal level, the previous coalition government passed the Religious Discrimination BillFootnote 2 through the House of Representatives and it proceeded to the Senate for debate. This Bill sought to make discrimination based on religious belief or activity unlawful, thereby overriding existing federal, state and territory protections against discrimination if, for example, a school were to dismiss a staff member because they did not reflect the school’s religious views. Despite former Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s promise that an amendment preventing religious schools from expelling LGBTIQA + students, this would not have prevented religious schools from discriminating against their sexuality and/or gender-diverse students. It must be noted that exemptions from the Sex Discrimination Act, which is a federal law, already existed in most states (Callaghan et al., 2023), which is why some schools were already implementing exclusions (Barnes et al., 2023).

The NSW Education Legislation Amendment (Parental Rights) Bill and the federal Morrison government’s Religious Discrimination Bill both failed to pass into legislation, but they contributed to a broader climate of moral panic associated with gender and sexuality education in schools. Many of the political and media conversations throughout the period of this research produced a volatile and toxic environment for investigating young people’s experiences and understandings of gender and gender diversity (Rawlings & Loveday, 2022). What the legislative attempts to regulate educational responses to gender diversity have in common is an assumption of the passivity and vulnerability of young people. We explore this in the following section.

Schools as cis-heteronormative spaces

Renold et al., (2017, p. 26) remind us that we live in a time where there are ‘increasingly multiple and visible ways of expressing gender’ and that gender is ‘something that you “do” and continually “re-make” through everyday social and cultural practices’. However, it is this discourse on gender that is considered contentious by some adults who see gender fixed in binary sexed bodies. Like sexuality, gender and gender diversity have become increasingly controversial and viewed as unsuitable topics to address with children and young people due to fear that they will experience both gender confusion and/or get caught up in what has been termed by some as a ‘social contagion’. Although it has been challenged by the research of Turban et al. (2022) and the Australian Psychological Society (2019), the term refers to young people who are perceived to be influenced by transgender and gender-diverse peers, or social influencers. Nevertheless, discourses of childhood and childhood innocence have been used to defend conservative perspectives and values that reinforce cis-heteronormative discourses of gender and sexuality as foundational to social norms and structures (Robinson, 2008, 2012).

The participants in this research challenge perspectives of young people as naïve, passive and vulnerable in relation to gender subjectivity, highlighting instead, young people as agentic subjects who are actively choosing different ways to ‘do’ gender beyond the binary. Young people see themselves and their generation (Gen Z) as more knowledgeable and progressive in terms of gender and gender diversity than their parents’ and grandparents’ generations (Bragg et al., 2018; Francis & Hoefel, 2018; Milkman, 2017; Renold et al., 2017). This self-reflection of being more progressive than previous generations is reflected through an expansive vocabulary driven by young people to describe multiple gender identities that represent how they see themselves as gendered or agendered subjects. Young people’s support for broader perspectives of gender is also reflected in the fanbase of well-known gender-diverse individuals (Renold et al., 2017), including Sam Smith, Bella Ramsey and Kim Petras. Despite this acceptance and engagement with gender diversity, young people are governed by gendered cultures that assume cis-heteronormativity. In research conducted by Renold et al. (2017), young people spoke about the pervasiveness of regulatory binary gender norms and acutely gendered objects and processes in their daily lives that they viewed were constituted and perpetuated through consumer cultures and school routines. Young people persistently identify uniforms as one of the material school practices that regulate student bodies within cis-normative agendas (Bragg & Ringrose, 2023; Renold et al., 2017).

Schools are gendered cultural sites where young people spend considerable amounts of time in their early lives. Through policies, pedagogies and the formal and hidden curriculum, schools legitimise and normalise heterosexuality and cis-normative gender identities, while marginalising and punishing those who threaten these sexuality and gender regimes (Ullman et al., 2022). Ferfolja and Ullman (2020, p. 35) argue that policies can initially appear to affirm and support transgender students in government schools, but they ‘remain largely remiss in their support for gender and sexuality diversity in the curriculum […] leaving decisions related to inclusion largely up to individual schools and teachers’. They point out that due to fears of negative community and public backlash associated with gender and sexuality diversity related content in schools, inclusion is constrained or avoided. This fear is reinforced by global instances of banning books with LGBTQIA + content, and teacher dismissals for incorporating discussions, readings and prescribed gender-based texts in their teaching, deemed ‘inappropriate’, as is the case in the United States (O’Loughlin et al., 2022).

Such moral panics, including those associated with the national Safe Schools initiative, become enmeshed in educational policies, curricula, pedagogies and schools, thereby impacting ‘teachers’ willingness to address gender and sexuality diversity inclusively’ (Ferfolja & Ullman, 2020, p. xii). As a result, schools, which are gendered cultural sites, avoid discussions related to gender diversity, ‘let alone affirmation of a transgender child’ (Smith & Payne, 2016, p. 34). Thus, education (including curricula, schools and teachers), which upholds traditional binary norms (Bragg et al., 2018; Hillier et al., 2020; Woolley, 2015, 2017), can be understood as doing the ‘repetition and recitation’ of gender performativity as ‘the vehicle through which ontological effects are established’ (Butler, 1994, p. 33). When education neglects to address gender and sexuality diversity inclusivity it perpetuates a ‘culture of limitation’ (Ferfolja & Ullman, 2020), and the impacts can be vastly negative for some transgender and gender-diverse young people, as there is pain associated with having to be forced to conform to [binary] gender norms’ (Renold et al., 2017).

Research methodology

The discussion in this paper is based on qualitative findings from an Australian Research Council Discovery project (Gender Matters: Changing Gender Equity Policies and Practices in Australian Schools), exploring gender equity in secondary schooling, involving recent high school leavers, secondary college students, teachers and educational policy makers. This project included interviews and focus groups with secondary school students, recent school leavers attending university, secondary college students, teachers and key education policy makers. This paper reports on one component of this larger project, which is the examination of the perspectives and experiences related to gender and gender equity of recent school leavers who were enrolled in university degrees at a metropolitan university in NSW between 2019 and 2021.

Forty-seven university students aged between 18 and 24 years participated, with 13 focus groups and five interviews conducted. Most of the participants were high school students when the national Safe Schools initiative furore erupted between 2015 and 2016, and as such were subject to the gender and sexuality debates of the time. As recent school leavers, they had fresh and detailed memories of their secondary schooling experiences, as well as having had critical time away from high school, enabling some critical reflection on their perspectives and experiences. Focus groups and interviews covered several key areas: young people’s understandings of gender; high school experiences related to gender; negotiation of gender-related experiences; school supports associated with gender; gender-related school policies and practices and university experiences related to gender, and awareness of gender equity policies.

The participants were recruited through university emails, posters and social media posts. Several subject coordinators voluntarily sent out the project information to their students or posted information on their subject’s online learning page. The LGBTQIA + Ally group at the university was also approached to distribute the research information through their student networks. Students interested in participating in the research were requested to contact the researchers for further information and to provide their contact details. The recruitment information specified that participants needed to be between 18 and 24 years old and had attended secondary school in Australia. Students filled out an online expression of interest via a Qualtrics survey. Thirty-three (33) participants identified as women, 11 identified as men and three identified as non-binary.Footnote 3 Most participants were aged 19 (n = 9) or 21 (n = 9), followed by those aged 18 (n = 8) and 20 (n = 8); five were aged 24, four were aged 22 and four were 23 years old.

Participants came from a range of school types including those that were co-educational faith-based, co-educational public, single-sex faith-based, single-sex public, Montessori, co-educational selective, single-sex selective, co-educational partially selective and independent or faith-based schools that presented as co-educational but were educationally and structurally sex-segregated (e.g. sex-segregated classes and different break times to avoid opposite-sex socialising). More than 50% of the participants spoke a language other than English (n = 24) with one participant speaking two languages other than English. Postcode analysis revealed that most participants resided in Western Sydney and attended high schools in this area. Of interest is that this region registered the largest ‘No’ vote in the 2017 marriage equality (same-sex marriage) postal survey. However, their views about gender and sexuality diversity expressed throughout interviews were generally contrary to those discourses underpinning the rejection of marriage equality that prevailed at the time. This potentially reflects a different younger generational view to that which prevailed amongst voters in the postal survey.

Data collected for the project were transcribed and thematically analysed using NVivo 12. All participants were asked about what their experiences of high school were like in relation to gender, what their understandings of gender are and how their views of gender differed from those of their parents and teachers. One of the key themes that emerged was that young people described themselves as adopting an educative role to people of earlier generations whom they saw as having out-of-date ideas and understandings of gender. We came to call this theme ‘teaching up’ as they perceived themselves to be educating their teachers and parents about gender diversity and inclusion.

The names of participants in this paper are pseudonyms; however, their gender identities (F = female/woman-identifying, NB = non-binary identifying and M = male/man-identifying) have been maintained. The pseudonyms of the young people quoted in this paper and their gender identities are: Victoria (F), Mawusi (F), Sofia (F), Camila (F), Fatima (F), Basma (NB), Stella (F), Lakshmi (F), Leah (F), Zaynab (F), Charlotte (F) and Danilo (M).

Changing perspectives of gender in contemporary times

The young people who participated in this study highlighted the changing perspectives and understandings of gender occurring in contemporary times, especially amongst their peer groups. Many were critically engaged in discussions about gender and how it is changing, particularly through young people’s understandings of gender as being fluid and through non-binary representations of gendered subjectivity. For most of the participants, gender was viewed as clearly in a state of flux due to its being ‘a very fluid notion now’ according to Sofia, with Victoria pointing out that ‘it’s still evolving […] it’s still changing’. Similarly, Stella spoke about understandings of gender as being ‘unfinished’. They pointed out that there were clear challenges to the traditional male/female binary views of gender with an increase in young people identifying as transgender, non-binary or gender fluid. Victoria stated that gender ‘used to be very black and white’, with Mawusi, adding, ‘gender isn’t as fixed as it once was’. Sofia, continued the conversation, commenting ‘it’s not just male and female anymore’.

Many participants attributed these changes in perspectives and understandings to the rise in feminism and the increased visibility of the LGBTQIA + community, as Camila pointed out:

I think with the newer and larger, more well-known understanding of non-binary and gender fluid, and transgender, has definitely changed our understanding fundamentally of gender itself. Our understanding of the separation of the genders has become much hazier and much more different, because of the rise of feminism or the LGBTQIA+ community, and all that kind of stuff.

Camila did not expand on what she meant by the ‘rise of feminism’, but we understood this to refer to an increase in young women’s social media activism, fuelled by the #MeToo movement that was especially vocal at the time of this research. Addressing women’s rights and the prevalence of domestic violence and sexual violence against women and girls, has not only been the focus of this movement, but also grappling with how feminism can be more inclusive of diversity and intersectionality (Cochrane, 2013); that is, how sexism, racism and homophobia, for example, can be experienced simultaneously to intensify the social inequities one encounters (Crenshaw, 1989). Equally, as Camila and others pointed out, the LGBTQIA + movement has also contributed to public debates about diversity and inclusion and how gender and sexuality diversity are viewed, represented and lived in contemporary times.

Stella was one of many young people, who acknowledged a passion for addressing gender issues and inequalities, a trait that she extended to young people more broadly, commenting, ‘I think that even today, we, being people who are passionate about these issues, are still fighting for things like distinct and widespread understanding of the difference between sex and gender’. For Stella, this distinction between sex and gender was core to her ‘fight’ for gender equality, believing it had a direct impact on people’s lives: ‘I think that people often talk about gender as what they mean to be sex, and I think that’s damaging to a lot of people’. Stella equated this lack of distinction between sex and gender with generational differences in understandings of gender, again highlighting this as a passionate issue for young people:

I think that in terms of, you know, intergenerational understandings of gender, I think, possibly a lot of people from older generations, associate gender with sex in that way. And even in some of the policies that I’ve been looking at, in my own research, will have kind of gender equality policies, or any mentions of gender, where what they really mean is sex. And I think that younger generations are more informed about those differences and more passionate about bringing those differences to the light and making changes in things like policies and forms and things like that.

The relationship between sex and gender, and whether sex determines gender, has been core to debates related to understandings of gender, and whether gender is biologically determined or socially constructed. Camila’s view of gender, shared by other young people in this study, was constituted in socially constructed perspectives, in which the characteristics and roles associated with sex (e.g. masculine/feminine/androgynous traits) are culturally and historically signified and variable; that is, these characteristics are discursively and materially constituted through sociocultural values, practices and structures that can change over time, and are foundational to gender and sexuality power relations. Within this perspective, sex does not determine gender (Butler, 1990). For many of the participants, gender was about how you felt inside, and how you wished to represent/express those feelings of how you identify. Camila showed great concern and sympathy for people who are not cisgender (cisgender meaning, gender identity is aligned with the sex presumed at birth) and have to negotiate a society structured on being cisgender. Camila acknowledged the difficulties that would be encountered, such as filling out forms and being excluded in policies—viewing this lack of inclusion as potentially ‘damaging’ to a person.

Young people ‘teaching up’ about gender

Perceived generational differences or gaps in understandings about gender were frequently returned to by young people throughout this study. However, generational differences were clearly infused with religious, cultural and heteronormative discourses that were foundational to the lives of most adults (e.g. family and teachers) with whom young people interacted. These were additional discourses with which many of the young people struggled, especially in their intersections with gender and sexuality. Young people offered counter-narratives to binary gender which they were actively involved in forging through their own values, practices and/or representations of gender identity. They spoke about not only educating themselves about gender (and sexuality), but also actively teaching adults, including parents and teachers, about changing perspectives of gender and how language had changed to capture the vast diversity of gender and sexuality identities in young people’s lives. Many young people equated this to ‘teaching up’ about gender to the adults in their lives. This ‘teaching up’ also included challenging gender stereotypes and practices that reinforced gender inequalities.

Teaching up at school

Although many of the participants in this research spoke about young people challenging rigid binary gender and gender stereotypes, they equally highlighted their frustrations about their schools and some teachers continuing to reinforce, rather than counteract, these through everyday schooling practices, which limited their education and life choices. They viewed schools and individual teachers as perpetuating and regulating binary representations of gender and reinforcing gender stereotypes and sexist perspectives of gender. This included stereotypes about girls’ and boys’ choices of subjects, sports and careers, echoing the experiences of students over generations.

Some young women described how they challenged their teachers for upholding school rules and policies that reinforced gender segregation in their co-education religious (Islamic) or non-denominational independent schools. They spoke about practices in these schools, which were presented as co-educational, of separating students by gender for classes and breaks, aimed to minimise the interactions between male and female students. One of the participants, Zaynab, attended public secondary schools until their senior years (years 11 and 12) at which point they attended a co-educational private Islamic school where the students were segregated according to their sex. Zaynab challenged the teachers for upholding this rule:

I don’t know why but I felt it was weird at the time when they separated boys and girls. I felt like, why would you just do that? I used to ask around. They’d go oh, so you don’t get distracted…I used to question because I came from a different school, so I used to always say, ‘why?’ The teachers used to get a shock. Like, why are you – why is she questioning us? But I wanted to know, I wanted to know why, why are you doing this? Yeah, it took a long time. The teachers didn’t really like me at that time but then they got used to me.

Sofia who attended a co-educational Catholic high school recalled that in year 10, at a pre-subject selection information night, the principal and careers advisors ‘actually discouraged the males from doing drama, they said that it was a female’s class’. She drew on the example of her best friend:

My best friend is a gay male, and he’s amazing at drama. He was doing a subject that he wanted to do, and he came with me to the arts [information area], and they were like ‘oh, math and science are on the other side of the campus’. He was like ‘no, I’m here for drama’. He was one of the first males in the school to continue into a secondary [arts subject]. Because everyone just listened to what they were told. Like if you have a teacher saying to you, ‘oh no, you should be doing that subject’, nine out of 10 people are going to listen because teachers know best.

Zaynab’s and Sofia’s accounts of schooling demonstrate that sex segregation and gender stereotyping are not just echoes of the past in education. These are core institutionalised practices that continue to perpetuate and maintain traditional binary views of gender, of gender roles and of inequalities in gendered power relations. The young people in this study proactively challenged the gender regimes of their schools and sought to mobilise different gender discourses more representative of who they were as gendered subjects. Sofia’s key comment, ‘teachers know best’, highlights the institutional power of teachers to influence students’ decisions, reinforcing gender stereotypes through subject choices. As a result, Sofia is critical of how many of her peers take the advice of teachers without seeing or challenging the sexist implications of their suggestions.

Teaching up at home

Young people in our study were from diverse backgrounds including religiously conservative Christian and non-Christian backgrounds and Muslim and Hindi backgrounds. These participants were equally engaged in practices of ‘teaching up’ within their homes. Many of the participants spoke about having divergent views from their parents with regard to gender. Fatima and Basma commented on the intersections between gender, religion and generational differences. Fatima, commented on challenging her mother’s views on gender:

I only live with my mum. I would never talk to my dad about this stuff. I don’t talk to him anymore anyway because he’s like that. But if it comes up with my mum, it’s like, four of my sisters, and we all have the same views. Yeah, why can’t there be people that are transgender, non-binary? What’s wrong with that? We always challenge her. So, she backs away because that’s four against one.

When asked if her mother’s ideas had changed, Fatima went on to say:

Partially. She’s really religious, so she sticks to her religious roots, and that’s – having such radical views of gender, that goes against the religion in a way. So, I don’t think she’ll change much. I’ve given up hope, mostly.

In Fatima’s household, ‘teaching up’ to her mother is not always conversational or a gentle shifting of perspectives. Rather, it can be confrontational as Fatima’s comments reveal. Fatima’s mother backs away from the discussion with her daughters, who hold similar positive views on transgender and non-binary identities. What we can see from Fatima’s comments is that these young women are using their agency in the home, including using the power that multiple voices in solidarity hold, to challenge their mother’s less positive views; but Fatima’s mother holds steadfast on her position; which is difficult to shift, largely due to her religious values. Fatima’s suggestion that her mother’s views may have ‘partially’ shifted suggests that Fatima sees it as worthwhile to continue these debates—or teaching up on gender and gender norms.

Basma, a non-binary participant, commented on how their father viewed gender:

I don’t hold the same views as a lot of your typical Muslims/Middle Easterners do. […] I think I’ve had a different mentality than most people. I think most Muslim children will just kind of accept that this is—these are the rules. They don’t realise that a lot of the time, this isn’t anything to do with the religion, it’s just their parents having old-school mindsets. For me, I’d always wanted to break away from that. […] My dad is a very old-school man. In his mind, we’re still living in the 50s. I suppose, in a sense, I don’t really need to elaborate on that. But to him, a woman is somebody who has to stay home, be a housewife, you have to get married, you have to have kids, otherwise, what is your purpose in life? He doesn’t think that women should have voices, he doesn’t think they should be heard, he does see men as superior. Also, to him as well, there is only female and male.

When asked if their father’s views had changed since he had immigrated to Australia, Basma went on to say:

Honestly, not at all. He kind of is just stuck in that old-school mindset. He doesn’t want to accept any change and if there is anything different that he sees, he calls it, ‘the Australian way’.

Basma differentiates themselves from what they consider to be ‘typical’ Muslim/Middle Eastern thinking when it comes to family regulations and gender relations. Basma, claiming their own sense of power, is more rebellious and less conforming to these dominant values and practices than many of their peers from similar religious backgrounds. However, Basma points out that different views around gender and other different ways of being, like those of their father, are not always about religious values, but rather, are more connected in Basma’s view, to generational differences and their father’s ‘old-school mindset’ perceived to be related to him still ‘living in the 50s’. Basma, who identifies as non-binary, frustrated with these conservative ‘old-school’ views, challenges their father’s traditional ideas and values on binary gender. These conflicted discussions are infused with multiple experiences and subjective locations, with complex intersections of generational, religious and cultural differences, including Basma’s father’s subjectivity as a migrant to Australia. According to Basma, their father easily dismisses the different values as ‘the Australian way’. However, considering what we have presented (that gender diversity is a contentious issue in Australia, reflective of a growing proactive global conservative and anti-trans movement), ‘the Australian way’ is more aligned with Basma’s father’s outlook, that ‘there is only female and male’, than ‘the Australian way’ being synonymous with inclusive and progressive attitudes to gender diversity. Further, compliance and resistance to patriarchal gender norms inherent in dominant discourses exist across and within all cultural backgrounds including Anglo-Australians, not just in migrant families (Mulholland et al., 2021; Pallotta-Chiarolli & Skrbis, 1994).

Lakshmi also commented on challenging conservative views on gender in her family, particularly those of her father, who she was fearful might say something offensive to someone in public about their gender identity that could lead to an altercation. She pointed out that these ‘teaching up’ conversations were generally educational, where everyone was collaboratively learning something about gender identity:

I do have these moments where I feel as if—and this is mainly my dad, because he can be very, very crude—there are moments where I feel as if you shouldn’t be saying stuff like that. Sometimes I need to check them a little bit. Just to be like in public, you can’t say things like that. You should change your ways a little bit here and there. I don’t want you to get hurt one day. So, I feel like sometimes it’s our job to almost be the spokesperson of the outside world to your parents and kind of just educate them a little bit and say this is how it’s going, this is how it’s changing. Sometimes they know more than you and sometimes you know a bit more than them. So, I think it’s a very collaborative environment that we have when we speak about gender perspectives and gender identity.

Intervening in her father’s behaviours may not only be about trying to protect him but may also be about avoiding any public embarrassment for herself and the person the comments were directed at. It is also an acknowledgement that her father’s views are different from those of her own, her friends and many others in contemporary Australian society. Lakshmi knew that her father did not hold back on making his views known, even to strangers, despite the potential consequences. Lakshmi saw herself as responsible for being a ‘spokesperson of the outside world’, speaking up for new and different ways of being, and teaching her father in particular. It is also reflective of other research where younger generations have ‘spoken up’ for new and different cultural and generational practices in immigrant families who hold on to traditional and familiar values and customs of the homeland (Mulholland et al., 2021). Lakshmi did not see these educational moments as irreconcilable differences, or as just one way learning, but rather optimistically as collaborative spaces where new things can be discussed and learnt about gender and gender identity across family generations.

In some instances, the ‘teaching up’ to parents was about expanding parents’ notions of what girls might be able to do, reflecting a more conventional feminist discourse rather than challenging the gender binary. For example, Leah who attended a co-educational Catholic high school, spoke about how her father’s views had changed over time:

I feel like my dad’s a lot better now, but growing up over the years, he used to be very like, oh, girls can’t play soccer and this and that. When I was very heavily into football and things like that. But that’s changed now, so it’s better. But it was annoying that I had to fight to play, when I was like 10 years old.

Leah commented further on why she thought her father’s views had changed:

I think because I’m a very outspoken person, and I feel like I’ve just—me and my sisters, we’re very big on women’s rights, and I feel like we’ve educated, and he’s listened, and been more open to changing his ways. But he [had a] very rough upbringing, things like that. So, yeah, I think over the years, he just opened himself up, and knew that that was what was needed to have a positive relationship with us.

These interactions that Fatima, Basma, Lakshmi and Leah often had with their parents demonstrate the volatility often associated with challenging hegemonic gender norms, in this case, in the context of families. Persevering with this volatility, they were ‘teaching up’ to their parents about different discourses of gender, gender relations and diverse ways of expressing gender, becoming more prevalent amongst many young people, wishing to be less restricted by binary gender norms. These interactions within the micro-political climate of families are reflections of the macropolitical climate of the broader society, where religion, family histories, cultural values, economics, politics and different subjectivities shape conversations across generations. These young people were actively engaged in driving awareness of these issues, and in some cases acceptance of these changes. Pallotta-Chiarolli and Skrbis (1994) make a pertinent point about power relations in their research on generational conflicts about ethnicity, sexuality, and gender within cultural minority groups that has relevance to this discussion. In the context of this research, young people, who are often the subordinate group in families and broader society ‘may not only be “questioning the unquestionable” but indeed calling into existence and functioning within a new reality that would usurp the power of the powerful’ (Pallotta-Chiarolli & Skrbis, 1994, p. 270).

Social media as a means of accessing information on gender and gender identity

Although many of the participants in this study spoke about having both negative and positive experiences with social media, some talked about it as an important source of information about gender, gender diversity, gender identity and sexuality that they were not able to get at school or at home. Social media permeates the lives of many Australians, especially young people, who are the largest group of social media consumers (Mingoia et al., 2017). Research highlights that social media platforms provide important opportunities for young people to explore identity (Bates et al., 2020; Byron et al., 2019; Fox & Ralston, 2016; Hanckel & Chandra, 2021; Selkie et al., 2020), including ‘alternative ways of understanding sex, sexuality and gender’ (Alexander & Losh, 2010, p. 24).

Basma highlighted how their interactions with social media were key to learning more about gender, gender diversity and themselves as a gendered subject:

If I am being completely honest, my perspective and my knowledge on gender didn’t stem from university at all. It was actually through meeting a lot of people online and it kind of raising my curiosity. So, I went and do a lot of research on that and it started clicking in my head and everything kind of made sense. A lot of it was from Facebook because I know quite a few people who live in, in a sense, more progressive countries, within these kind of things. I had quite a few people who were nonbinary kind of introduce me to that. I think it was maybe five years ago, when I actually knew that being transgender was a thing. I never really knew anything about that, I didn’t know it was even possible, and here I am, five years later, and I know all this stuff about it. So, it was really a learning experience.

These social media interactions provided Basma with a broader understanding of gender that their father and school were neglecting. Another study participant, Charlotte, commented about her experiences of engaging with social media:

I think social media actually really helped me become open to the different things that we’ve got out in this society at the moment. So, growing up in a school that was very much men and women, it was when I surrounded myself with different pages and groups. Things that allowed—were really open to the idea of gay rights and choosing your own identity and your own gender, and mixing—creating the fluid between the two genders. I think that’s what helped me a lot because it showed me that this was my idea of what gender was and it wasn’t what someone else was making me think it was.

Fatima also spoke about learning to be far more open about gender from social media:

I think in our public culture, I guess I would call it, views of gender are still pretty fixed. Most people have the view that there can only be two genders, male and female, and that any other classification is freakish. But I think in the online sphere, because I go on social media a lot, especially Twitter, everyone has their pronouns in their bio. Non-binary people are respected, for the most part, of course… Everyone is changing their minds about gender online and even me.

For some participants, like Lakshmi, social media provided a world of different gender possibilities, with certain groups offering a space in which to feel comfortable exploring different gender identities:

For me personally, it was…becoming more aware of other gender perspectives and becoming more aware of other gender identities. There's more underground stuff…[Website] is very, very interesting because it explores all these ideas and identities and issues that aren’t spoken of in mainstream media and mainstream culture… you feel as if you can be who you want to be.

Participants in this study pointed out that social media was a means through which to learn more about gender and sexuality, a kind of educative ecology that they were actively part of, and to explore their own potential gender and sexuality diverse identities. Many engaged in online discussions and felt comfortable in certain groups that allowed for open dialogue about their questioning gender and sexuality identities. Despite attempts by some adults and schools to quash discussions about gender and gender diversity, and to perpetuate a hegemonic form of heterosexuality in schools, these young people’s actions demonstrate a resistance to this discourse and a deep engagement with non-binary and fluid representations of gender (Bragg et al., 2018). An Australian study of LGBTQIA + young people and social media conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic reported that social media, especially for these young people, who may not always have support in the home or in schools, is a critical site for support and validation of their identities (Hanckel & Chandra, 2021). In the study on which this article is based, recent school leavers who did not identify as part of the LGBTQIA + community were using social media to ‘offer alternative ways of understanding sex, sexuality and gender’ (Alexander & Losh, 2010, p. 24). It can be deduced that as a result of young people like Charlotte, Fatima and Lakshmi, ‘teaching up’ to themselves about gender, they could be more aware and empowered in ‘teaching up’ to parents and teachers.

Conclusion: what is the future of education about gender in schools?

The young people who participated in this study highlighted how understandings and representations of gender are changing in contemporary times. However, they also pointed out that these changes were not readily accepted or supported by older generations, such as their parents, which often caused conflicts within families. Young people spoke about gender as being far more dynamic and fluid, and that traditional binary understandings of gender were no longer applicable to how many young people expressed their gender identity. For most of these young people, schools were not the sites in which they engaged in new learnings about contemporary perspectives of gender, gender identity and gender diversity. When schools and families could not provide the information or support required regarding gender and gender diversity, young people indicated that the internet and social media communities were vital in their explorations. This is not surprising considering the significant influence that conservative voices have had on what is considered suitable and unsuitable knowledge to address with young people in schools. Gender and gender diversity, within conservative discourse, are viewed as controversial topics and potentially confusing for young people.

Far from being disinterested in discussing gender, many of the young people spoke passionately about the importance of acknowledging and accepting the changes associated with representations of gender identity. They critiqued schools for the lack of education they received about gender and gender issues and were highly critical of the ways in which traditional understandings of binary gender dominated their schooling experiences and underpinned schools’ and teachers’ policies and practices.

Through recollections of their family and high school experiences, young people demonstrated their agency in advocating for social justice and gender equity and for actively building the social and cultural worlds in which they lived. Their actions reflect a ‘teaching up’ (educating) about contemporary gender and gender equity to teachers and families, with many leading the way for different ways of being. Such actions are multidimensional and intersectional because many of these participants come from culturally and linguistically diverse households where views and beliefs about gender intersect with religion.

The experiences shared by the young people in this study offer some important points for consideration by educators. Firstly, there is a need to revisit and address how school policies and practices continue to reinforce gender stereotypes perpetuating powerful sexist discourses of gender. Secondly, young people are keen to have safe and supportive educational spaces to openly and critically discuss contemporary gender issues that impact their lives. Thirdly, binary gender does not fit with how many young people wish to express their gender identities and they need the support to explore different options safely and supportively. Fourthly, there is a need to address the generational differences associated with gender and gender diversity through what was highlighted by Lakshmi as generational ‘collaborative learning’ spaces. Finally, schools need to more actively embrace and include diversity in all its manifestations, as Danilo ‘teaches up’:

I think it’s time for schools to embrace who you are as a person. Because at the end of the day, it’s not how you look like. It’s how you treat people, how you value respect. I think that’s more important.