Journal 2

Gender, gender identification and the differences in gendered health appears to

be quite a controversial topic. As seen in recent media surrounding the Safe
Schools Coalition, people are divided in their opinion of the program. Safe
Schools is an optional program for schools in which students learn about positive
inclusion of same sex attracted, intersex and gender diverse students, staff and
families (Safe Schools Coalition Australia, 2016).
I believe in theory this sounds like an ideal program to teach students empathy
and ethics. As John Germov (2013) states gender needs to be a central
component in any health conceptual framework and not just as an add-on
(p126).
Triple J- Hack reporter Sarah McVeigh, recently conducted an investigation into
one school currently using some resources from the Safe Schools program.
McVeigh states that an estimated 1 in 10 Australians are same sex attracted. She
also found that the average age of a first suicide attempt is 16 years- often
before coming out (McVeigh, 2016). The mental health organisation Beyond
Blue backs up this statement, explaining that young Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual,
Transgender, Intersex (LGBTI) Australians are 6 times more likely to commit
suicide than their heterosexual peers. McVeigh supports the program in schools
as it gives young people information and choices as well as highlighting the
issues faced by LGBTI students across the school.
In contrast, Laura McNally a reporter for ABC Religion and Ethics wrote an article
titled Gender Neutrality or Enforcement? Safe Schools isnt as Progressive as it
Seems. In this article McNally states that the safe schools program explicitly
teaches pansexuality, how to bind breasts or be gender queer (McNally, 2015).
Yet as McVeigh stated in her investigation (the program) has links to the Minus
18 website, which has guides for trans kids on how to bind their chests and tuck
their genitals (McVeigh, 2016). The program does not explicitly teach this, but
rather provides access to transgender students for their own research.
McNally argues that the term gender and the gender debate has only
recently become public.
I find this curious because there have been discussions about gender equality for
many decades.
In 1984, the Sex Discrimination Act came into force, making it against the law to
discriminate against someone on the basis of gender, sexuality, marital status,
family responsibilities or because they are pregnant (Humanrights.gov.au, 2016).
And yet 32 years later there are still heated discussions about what students are
being taught (or not taught) on this issue in schools.
I dont believe the Safe Schools coalition is perfect, and as stated in the article it
may in fact be more confusing for students. In saying that, I dont believe the
Australian curriculum is perfect either, and I think there needs to be some sort of
an arrangement where the needs of the LGBTI community are being met and
children are taught the importance of acceptance and progressiveness.

As Germovs explains, we must move away from the simplistic ideals of having
male and female categories and that the view of gender and health care
cannot be fixed. I agree with this statement. Just like in the 1970s, when
womens health care finally started to become normalised, we must now
recognise that its time that same-sex attraction, transgender, gender fluid,
intersex, etc. exist and that they may require a different approach in schools and
in healthcare. In order to address the negative impact on unequal gender
relations on health, an approach that aims to highlight the complexities of the
debate rather than perpetuate a binary and simplified way to look at gendered
health care is needed (Germov, 2013 p137).
Gender and health inequity is not only seen on a local level. Global public health
also highlights inequality. The short clip called If the World Were 100 people
shows statistics from income, housing, nutrition etc of people if there was to only
be 100 people in the world. The statistics that jumped out most to me were
regarding money, weight, water, housing and education. Out of the 100 people,
15 would make less than $2 a day with 1 person controlling 50% of the money, 1
would be starving (21 over weight), 13 wouldnt have access to clean water, 23
wouldnt have shelter and 93 wouldnt attend college. I believe that if those 100
people were to work together to create more housing, nutritious food, more
education and therefore more jobs, there would be some form of equality where
everyone would be experiencing their human rights in having shelter, food and
clean drinking water. But as we can see in the world, not everyone is willing to
work with one another to create an equitable playing field. Those in power often
do not want to share it. And when power and wealth is shared it is as often to
benefit the giver as it is the receiver. As Germov (2013) states that whilst Aid
can make a difference to poorer countries, much of this has limited effectiveness
because it is used to serve the national interest of the donor countries (p 76). I
also found it interesting that although there is enough food in the world to feed
every single person, global hunger is still a massive problem.
I do believe that action at the local level is a good starting point and that it is
from little things big things grow. There does need to be robust debate, however
there is a growing need for changes to the way we learn about, think about and
experience gendered health and wellbeing needs. The Safe Schools program is a
good start and evidently it has created heated debate, which is a good way to
get the issues out into the community and to the world.
In reference to my previous journal, just like defining health, coming to an
agreement on gender education will be a tedious task. Everybody has their own
beliefs, and to create a curriculum that will encompass all aspects of modernised,
gendered health that everyone will agree on will be hard.