4.3 Article

Supporting transgender students in schools: beyond an individualist approach to trans inclusion in the education system

期刊

EDUCATIONAL REVIEW
卷 74, 期 4, 页码 753-772

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/00131911.2020.1829559

关键词

Transgender students; transgender inclusion; cisnormativity; cisgenderism; trans education; gender diversity and schooling

资金

  1. SSHRC (Social Sciences Humanities Research Council Canada) [435-2015-0077]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article provides insights into administrative and pedagogical approaches to supporting transgender students in schools, highlighting the limitations of liberal individualism and rights in addressing transgender inclusion. The case study in Ontario contributes to research on educators' perspectives on trans youth in schools and systemic barriers impacting support for transgender students in the education system.
In this article, we provide theoretically informed empirical insights into administrative and pedagogical approaches to supporting transgender students in schools which rely on a fundamental rationality of individualisation and rights. We draw on trans epistemological frameworks and political theories that address the limits of liberal individualism to provide insights into how transgender inclusion and recognition are conceived and enacted in one particular school in Ontario. Our case study contributes to an emerging body of research that documents the viewpoints of educators in response to the increasing visibility of trans youth in schools and a growing awareness of their experiences which have highlighted the institutional and systemic barriers continuing to impact on the provision of support for transgender students in the education system. Overall, the case study serves as an illustrative exemplification of the problematic of trans inclusion when it is driven by a logics of liberal individualism and rights that fail to address broader forces of cisnormativity and cisgenderism.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据