I was recently called in to the headmaster’s office. It has been two decades since I finished high school at St. Stithians Boys’ College (‘Saints’), but apparently I had misbehaved. You see, my alma mater has embraced some of the most troubling elements of wokery, and I have been asking them hard questions.
My discussion with the headmaster was private. But what I discovered afterwards was not. It was on show for all to see. Posted alongside some ‘racial microaggression’ material on a notice board outside my old biology laboratory (apparently without irony) was the notorious ‘Genderbread Person’. Described on its associated website as a “teaching tool for breaking the big concept of gender down into bite-sized, digestible pieces”, there is a great deal more to it than that.
Typically found smiling in or around bathroom facilities, the Genderbread Person is attributed to one Sam Killermann. That said, his website explains that the graphic is “contributed to by countless people around the world and throughout the decades”. It is now in its fourth version.
Killermann describes himself as an “artist, author, and award-winning activist who focuses on themes of gender, sexuality, and global justice”.
The Genderbread Person that I spotted was at the Boys’ College, where it is mostly lads between 14 and 18 years old who stroll about. The Boys’ Prep is adjacent, so kids as young as five are often dashing around this area.
I decided to do two things in response to my discovery. First, I would challenge the school on why the Genderbread Person was being displayed. Second, I would propose a solution.
Much like Killermann did with his Genderbread Person, I thought I’d also make this open source. So here is a template for anyone else worried about the Genderbread Person appearing without explanation, nuance or discussion on a school notice board near you.
Dear [Insert name]
I note with concern the appearance of the Genderbread Person on a notice board at [School Name]. I would like to challenge the reasons for this display and propose an alternative.
The Genderbread Person is demonstrably pseudoscientific.
I appreciate that there are some noble intentions behind the Genderbread Person. It appears to assert things like freedom of sexual orientation and the right to be as feminine or masculine as one chooses. However, it resorts to indefensible claims in its attempt to address these issues. There are plenty of ways to achieve these important goals without snubbing the scientific method.
The Genderbread Person also appears to champion some radical stances that may be valid discussion points in some contexts, but which are not appropriate for public display at [School Name], certainly if no context is provided.
Here are the questions I propose the school ought to provide answers to:
1. Why is the Genderbread Person there at all? What part of the school’s mandate is this fulfilling?
2. Why is the Genderbread Person posted without any context? One might make the case that this is useful material for a class that discusses, say, the phenomenon of gender ideology. That would, at a minimum, require a facilitator who presents alternatives and invites criticism. And who points out the logical and scientific failings in the image.
3. Why do you believe this is this age-appropriate? Can you demonstrate benefits from displaying this type of content to children of ages [insert relevant age group]?
4. I appreciate the need to simplify complex phenomena in order to categorise, analyse and discuss them. I submit that the Genderbread Person ‘simplifies’ topics such as sex far beyond usefulness. Do you suggest that labelling individual body parts with broad terms like “Identity” is helpful for children?
I assert the following elements of the Genderbread Person amount to pseudoscience:
1. The arrow pointing to the groin is labelled “Sex”. Indeed, genitalia are an important part of sex. This labelling, however, is folly. Sex is far more than genitalia. From the gametes one is capable of producing and chromosome pairings, to the angle of the femur and innumerable aspects of the endocrine system, the topic is vast. This labelling is a simplification that does not assist our understanding of reality. It muddies the water. It is not education.
2. The Genderbread Person applies the metaphor of the heart being the locus of attraction. That works in poetry. It is at best unhelpful in a labelled diagram at an academic institution. The heart is a muscle.
3. The head is labelled “Identity”. Given the brain’s job, this seems almost defensible. However, the vagueness of the term ‘identity’ as a label for the human head is unscientific. It is also unclear why children would need to be told this. It seems an insult to their intelligence.
4. “Expression” seems to be nebulously linked with the outside of the Genderbread Person. Presumably this refers to “gender expression”. Of course, some elements of masculinity and femininity are expressed in one’s appearance. Many aren’t. Personality traits, for example, can be appropriately analysed as gendered things. Limiting gender expression to the way one looks excludes important factors.
5. The Genderbread Person presents various scales. The anatomical sex scale is most problematic. There are two sexes. We know this because there are precisely two types of gametes that humans can produce. Anomalies like DSD exist. These are exceptions that prove the rule. There remain only two types of human gamete. Two sexes. Suggesting that sex exists on a spectrum is pseudoscience.
6. "Sex assigned at birth". This is propaganda. It suggests that one can change one's sex. That is not the case.
7. I submit that none of the following formulations in the Genderbread Person amount to meaningful or useful representations of anything:
· “Identity ≠ Expression ≠ Sex”
· “Gender ≠ Sexual Orientation”
· “Women and/or Feminine and/or Female People”
· “Men and/or Masculine and/or Male People”
A suggestion
There is a teachable moment here. Why not set a task for the teachers and pupils who want to display this image?
Printing something from the internet is easy. It also carries the high risk of spreading gobbledygook. Those advocating for the display of the Genderbread Person should be able to present their justifications. I’d suggest they be required to answer or do the following:
1. Why have you chosen the Genderbread Person for display?
2. Explain why the Genderbread Person is appropriate for [insert relevant age group].
3. For each label and scale presented on the Genderbread Person, briefly back up the claim being made. Feel free to use academic or popular sources. Ensure your reasoning is sound.
I hope my criticism and suggestions are received in the productive light I intend.
Regards,
[Name]
Saints has ignored my questions and rejected my suggestion. The operative part of the school’s refusal of my invitation to comment (via the chairman of the alumni association, with the rector and several heads of school in copy): “It is imperative that we maintain the integrity and expertise of our academic body. Going forward, I strongly urge you to respect the authority of our teachers and allow them to do what they do best.”
I agree with that first sentence, but not in the way he means it. I reject the notion that we should bow to the expertise of teachers – especially if their ‘expertise’ includes propagating cartoons that sprout sexual pseudoscience. I respect education and logic and science enough to keep pressing school leaders for answers.
Before submitting this story, I extended my afternoon jog to loop through Saints. The Genderbread Person had come down. Quietly. A few yards away, the ‘Gender Unicorn’ had gone up.
Of course, I didn’t expect an earnest, reasoned response. My invitation was, however, sincere. I believe the school that does conduct an exercise requiring staff and pupils to delve into this issue robustly will be doing the right thing.
I don’t advocate ‘cancel culture’. I don’t want bad ideas censored. I’d rather they be exposed and challenged with other ideas and superior evidence. They should be put under the pressure of good debate. Bad ideas can’t survive that for long.
If you’ve spotted this deceptively happy looking cartoon outside a lavatory at a school near you, feel free to use and adapt this template. I fear that most responses will be as unproductive as the one I received. Some will be more fruitful. At a minimum you will put decision makers on notice that someone is marking their work.