Seven Reasons the Gender Unicorn Should NOT Be Taught in Schools

Here is a video of a teacher explaining how she teaches the Gender Unicorn to 10 year old children.

And here is the Gender Unicorn:

Now here are the seven things wrong with this poster/lesson and why it should not be taught in public schools.

1. We have already seen that the term “sex assigned at birth” is misleading and a subtle attack on the scientific approach.  Medical professionals determine/detect the sex using evidence;  they don’t just assign.  The assignment is simply reporting what has been detected.  See here for more detail:

2.  When it comes to Gender Identity, the teacher correctly notes it is a purely a feeling and “no one can see this from the outside.”  In other words, undetectable.   Without evidence.  Because it is purely subjective and nothing more than feelings, it far more unreliable than “sex assigned at birth.”  Sex is detected by the evidence, gender is a private feeling.  Yet the poster tries to flip this reality.  It treats sex as something that “is assigned,” while gender is one’s “identity.”  The subtle attack on science continues.

Yes,  people can be very sincere in their feelings (think of the various phobias, such as a fear of snakes),. But this does not mean the feelings must be rooted in reality nor does it mean we must all go along with someone else’s feelings.  If you are going to teach a feeling-based approach to reality, students need to learn how unreliable this can be.  The Gender Unicorn completely ignores this.

3.  In picking a “Gender identity,” the student is given a choice of male/man/boy or female/woman/girl.    Yet keep in mind that Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was unable to “define a woman.”  If an intelligent Supreme Court Justice has trouble with such definitions, imagine the average 10 year old child.  Given the Gender Unicorn makes no effort to define these terms, it is clearly not educational.

4.  In picking a “Gender identity,” the student is also given the choice of “other.” Yet none of these other genders are mentioned.  Not one.  Not once.  The failure to identify these mysterious “other” genders is further indication that this handout is not educational and will likely sow confusion in the classroom.

5. When we get to “Gender Expression,” the student is given the choice of “masculine,” feminine,” or other.  Once again, no definitions.  What is meant by “feminine?”  Or “masculine?”   Does feminine mean “like Barbie” or “Disney princess?”  Does masculine mean “like GI Joe?”  How does a child define these concepts?   It would appear this handout is, intentionally or unintentionally,  encouraging  and entrenching sex-based stereotypes.   This is wrong.  The schools should not be teaching and reinforcing sexual stereotypes on the children.

6.  The students are asked who they are physically attracted to and who they are emotionally attracted to.  These questions are far too intrusive.   No teacher or educator should be prying into the private lives of their students with these type of questions.  You would get into trouble if you asked such questions to a candidate in a job interview.  The bottom line is that some students might be very uncomfortable with providing this information to the teacher and/or rest of the class.  If that happens, this lesson becomes abusive. 

7. Finally, note that then the students are asked who they are physically attracted to and who they are emotionally attracted to, the choices provided are “men” and “women.” In other words, ADULTS. 

This handout as asking to students to admit they are sexually attracted to adults.  For an adult teacher to use this handout to get young kids to acknowledge their sexual attraction for adults can be legitimately labeled as ‘grooming.’  Highly immoral. 

To summarize, the Gender Unicorn should not be taught in public schools for many reasons.  It encourages students to adopt an anti-science approach to reality that relies entirely on feelings for determining the truth, it relies on terminology that is undefined and uncharacterized, it promotes sex-based stereotypes, asks intrusive, and potentially abusive, questions, and finally, it is formulated in such a way that could easily be exploited by actual groomers in the schools.  The handout is both dishonest and unethical and is not appropriate for classroom use.

This entry was posted in education, gender, teacher, woke and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Seven Reasons the Gender Unicorn Should NOT Be Taught in Schools

  1. Dhay says:

    > 6. The students are asked who they are physically attracted to and who they are emotionally attracted to. These questions are far too intrusive. No teacher or educator should be prying into the private lives of their students with these type of questions. You would get into trouble if you asked such questions to a candidate in a job interview. The bottom line is that some students might be very uncomfortable with providing this information to the teacher and/or rest of the class. If that happens, this lesson becomes abusive.

    Whether or not individual students are comfortable or uncomfortable divulging this information, demanding this information – the teacher-student power imbalance and the implicit (or explicit?) threat of punishment for disobedience means that the teacher’s request functions as a demand – could and arguably should be challenged on child protection grounds; it is not in a child’s best interests to be compelled to provide information which could be used against them by potential abusers.

    Even a doctor has no right to demand to know details of a patient’s sexuality and emotional life, and it would certainly contravene medical ethics were a doctor to turn over information gained to a third party such as a teacher; and especially so if turned over without explicit permission from the child’s carers: what is unethical for a doctor is doubly unethical for a teacher.

    *

    Some guidance on how interpret the Gender Unicorn is at:

    “To learn more, go to: https://transstudent.org/gender/”

    There’s definitions of the terms, a diagram showing by completed example how the Gender Unicorn should be completed, and an explanation of the ‘Changes from The Genderbread Person’ and how Genderbread Person was considered unsatisfactory. I’ll look at parts of each, in turn.

    The definition of Sex Assigned at Birth includes this aside:

    … It is important we don’t simply use “sex” because of the vagueness of the definition of sex and its place in transphobia. …

    Which includes a link. Follow that link – which is also in the “Changes From The Genderbread Person” section – and you will find (much that Michael has already argued against – so I’ll skip it – and) that:

    Others cede the fact that trans women are women, but stop there and say “gender is what’s between your ears, sex is what’s between your legs” and therefore trans women are still males. Although this is a popular idea, it is based on a misunderstanding of biology, social constructs and anatomy, and it needs to stop.

    https://www.autostraddle.com/its-time-for-people-to-stop-using-the-social-construct-of-biological-sex-to-defend-their-transmisogyny-240284/

    Take a look at the Gender Unicorn diagram and its symbolism and tell me if gender isn’t between it’s ears and sex assigned at birth between its legs. The alleged “popular … misunderstanding … that needs to stop is embodied by themselves, unchanged, in the Gender Unicorn.

    (Oh, and Gender Expression seems to be symbolised – by those appropriate-colour dots – as a miasma emanating from the horny Unicorn’s rear. Yes, I’m taking the piss, but the symbolism seems badly chosen when you look at the detail of it.)

    Changes from The Genderbread Person includes:

    There are several other issues with this [Genderbread Person] graphic such as … the use of “asex” (which fails to recognize that everyone has sex characteristics prescribed to them),…

    Really? Everyone has sex characteristics prescribed to them?! ** That this wording was present in the first appearance of the webpage back in October 2014 (link below) and has persisted uncorrected these last seven and a half years, that tells me the activists who originated the Gender Unicorn were not medically qualified – it’s an unthinkable mistake for any medical professional –, that it’s remained overviewed by medical professionals since, and that the subset of teachers who have used the Gender Unicorn – I imagine there’s many unWoke teachers who wouldn’t touch it – are either too poorly educted themselves to spot the blunder or too uninterested or apathetic to use the contact email provided at the bottom: “If you have any questions, feel free to email us at TSER [at] transstudent.org!”

    http://web.archive.org/web/20141030110359/http://www.transstudent.org:80/gender

    ( ** Sadly, there are people who have sex characteristics prescribed to them – transsexuals, by endocrinologists – but these are an as yet tiny minority, they are not “everyone.”)

  2. Dhay says:

    … remained un-overviewed…

  3. Pingback: Transgender Wars - Culture War Focus : Faith Seeking Understanding

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.