This is great and I think your latest photos are really cute.
FWIW when I was about 10 (way back when over 5 decades ago), I remember feeling absolute *relief* that I was female, because I could wear purple if I wanted to and my brothers couldn't, really. Not that they wanted to; I did.
I think the most important lesson in the world is that nobody has to conform their character to a stereotype. The important qualities we admire, of strength and courage, of compassion and care, of kindness and protection for the weak, belong to everybody. As a female I despise the catty manipulative stereotypes that some people think mean "feminine." To blazes with them.
You write: "Whether born as female or male, we have the burden and honor of accepting life and making the most of our unique gifts." 100%. This is a spiritual journey, and I hope that takes you forward.
I love your creative funky aesthetic. I was a lot like you when I was a kid - I was a “weird girl”, had a lot of issues with anxiety and depression, liked to wear strange clothes, wasn’t “conventionally pretty” like the tan, blonde, fashionable popular girls, had a strange obsession with military history, didn’t like uncomfortable/dumb fashions, and hung out with all the weirdos. It is likely that I am on the spectrum, as two of my three kids are.
Fortunately, back then in 70s and 80s, this was considered just being a weird girl and while my male friends used to joke that I was an “honorary dude”, it would have never occurred to me or anyone else that I should “transition”. I was lucky in that my mom was an old-school feminist who celebrated the fact that girls (and boys!) no longer had to conform to the rigid stereotypes that she had to when she was growing up. She never tried to force me to dress or act more “feminine”. I really think all this gender stuff is extremely regressive.
I am 100% heterosexual, have been married to a man for 30 years and have three kids. However, I used to always get mistaken for a lesbian, I guess because I like tattoos and piercings and masculine-ish clothes. It does make me think that if I was a teen today, I’d probably feel pressured to be trans or non-binary or something because of my love of flannel shirts and short hair.
A few of my young adult daughters’ friends have gone through a trans or non-binary stage (fortunately, none have done anything irreversible...yet) and all of them remind me so much of myself when I was a kid. Just weird girls who need to grow into themselves and realize they don’t have to be “girly” to be a girl.
What a tremendous story. So interesting. Self actualization and self-love are harder than ever in our AI generated society with confusing for profit medical practices. I love the work you’re doing- you are a generous gift to the world.
She writes very well. I am concerned, however, by how “performative” her entire journey seems to be. Maybe this is typical for the Instagram generation??? Are we raising our children to lack depth of understanding and meaning? How should we fight this going forward?
Granted, as a person on the spectrum and with other mental health issues (abuse), her emotional maturity would have been slower to develop, but why was that not taken into account in her pre-transition evaluation? The really useful thing about her account is how it demonstrates the wisdom the “old” way of handling gender dysforia (psychological evaluation over a period of time while the person “tries out” living publicly as the opposite gender). It also shows how quickly the “authorities” nowadays answer every question about discomfort with puberty with “gender”.
Incredibly sad about how much we’re adding to the struggles of those who need more help.
It's tragic that women's natural life transitions, which are often fraught and difficult, are being medicalized.Whether it's entering puberty, motherhood, menopause, or old age, we're told that a drug or surgery or hormones or diet or make-up or hair dye will make us a better woman, a more attractive woman, a more normal woman.
We need to learn to manage and ease these transitions in ways that respects our bodies and our inner selves, otherwise girls will keep thinking it's easier to transition into being male than to go through the transition of becoming a woman.
You are a beautiful young and funky woman with Kate Winslet eyes. Thank you for writing about your journey to self-acceptance. A thought struck me as I read that perhaps creative children are a primary target of the gender world. Those who are creative see meaning in symbols, colors and style. They can see things I, as a very uncreative woman, cannot see. Clothes never had any meaning for me outside of being there to cover my body and keep me comfortable. I understood societal norms and mostly complied with those norms, but always dressed for comfort first, appearance somewhere dead last. I'm 62 and haven't changed, although I will, for my husband's sake, take time on appearance if going out together. What you've been through will make you a better mother than many, and you will know how to love and protect your children.
Glad to hear your story has a happy ending, and very much appreciate you doing the super important work of telling it to the world. It's not surprising you finally 'settled' into your true self at age 25, since that's when the brain has fully developed. Welcome back (to womanhood)!
I love how you were able to map out your whole journey, and, while I'm sure it was way more complex and nuanced than even your very detailed account can describe, you've given enough information for anyone to see the reality. The current societal messaging and omnipresence of "gender" and medical "solutions" to the "problem" of growing up and into ourselves is destructive and only makes things worse. Luckily, you have found your way out of that whole mess relatively whole and unscathed (not to diminish in any way the seriousness of losing body parts and suffering whatever the results may be of years of synthetic testosterone). As a parent of a daughter going through similar struggles, I'm so happy to hear a story with a hopeful message!
Fascinating. I am at least a decade older, and I wonder if the hyper-sexualization of girls in the late ought's drove this narrowing of definitions. Looking back at David Bowie, Prince, Annie Lenox, Sinead O'Connor, the omnipresence of grunge androgyny, and the kilts and skirts of Korn, Jack White, and Marilyn Manson in the late 90s/early 2000s, people were allowed to express more gender non-conformance.
Have our interpretations of gender today become so narrow and performative? How can society reset so aesthetic preferences are just that-preferences of choice and design and not functions of identity?
But aesthetic preferences are also functions of identity, no? I think there will always be pressure to conform to some norm in any society and this is also not neccesarily a bad thing. These days we talk as if any kind of norm is by definition bad. There has to be a middle road. If you are a woman and you want to have success in the dating world, find a good man, start a family, you'll simply have an easier time at it by adhering at least somewhat to your "female identity" and the aesthetics that go along with that. Or you can rebel against the norm and dress and behave "like a man" if you so want, but the reality is that most men instinctively will not find that attractive. Of course the same goes for men. If you want to be succesful in finding a wife, you'll definitely increase your chances by adhering to certain norms of male behaviour, which at least in part exist because these are the kind of traits and behaviours that most women find attractive and are most beneficial to living a life of value and purpose, for yourself and for society as a whole.
If people want to express themselves in different ways from the norm, of course that should be possible and people should not be attacked or shamed or anything like that.
The problem arises when people start thinking "I should be able to go against the norm while still having all the benefits that come from adhering to said norm. I should not be judged, or ever be made to feel different". While this would perhaps be a nice utopia, it is basically wishing the world to be the way you want it to be, instead of taking it as it is.
This is not the 1950's anymore. We all have quite a lot of room for individual expression and norms aren't nearly as strict as they once were. This is a good thing in many ways, although looking at old photographs of regular people on the street in cities from a century ago also makes one somewhat nostalgic for a time when men looked like men and women looked like women (and buildings looked like things actually designed by and for humans).
I've read several times women today are less happy than the generation of their grandmothers, with all it's "restrictive" gender norms. Men are also less happy because too many women try to be "like men" and deny their femininity. Not because they really want to, but because current social narratives tell them that they should be, in order to be "equal".
The narrowing of definitions you mentioned is shown in the rise of identity politics and obsession with labelling that's important in gender theory. Where are you on the "gender spectrum", i.e., what's your label? That's such a damaging, divisive regression that's it's hard to fathom how it gained traction in schools and with anyone considered to be progressive. It's also opened the door to a gross expansion of "Pride" to all manner of sexual fetishes, including pedophilia, recently renamed minor-attracted persons (MAPs). "Leave the kids alone" can't become the standard too soon.
You specifically asked how it gained traction in schools. That is something I can lay out:
Let’s go back to the 1970s. While the schools of the 1960s were concerned with desegregation but public schools in the 1970s had to deal with a new reckoning from the 1973 Rehabilitation Act, which codified vocational rehabilitation for individuals with disabilities. The is the act of law that transformed schools, by creating Section 504. Section 504 was the very first act that required schools to provide opportunities for students and adults with disabilities. 504 defined disabilities as “Any person who (a) has a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more of such person's major life activities, (b) has a record of such an impairment, or (c) is regarded as having such an impairment.” The effects of this are long reaching, not the least because they mandate how schools must accommodate students. This law was further codified and expanded in 1975’s Education for All Handicapped Children Act.
In the '70s children were segregated into different educational programs and facilities for a number of reasons. This included students who were of low-intelligence and those with severe psychological and emotional regulation disorders. In the 1970s many of these children, especially those who were deaf, blind, or with physical disabilities, were not educated at all. Initially this law had noble intentions to "mainstream" children who had previously been excluded from accessing educational services including children who were blind, deaf, and those with physical disabilities.
The EHA established the right for all students to be placed in their Least Restrictive Environment for school to ensure they had access to the same "high quality instruction" as students in mainstream classrooms. At the time there was a high focus on the condition a student had and how the diagnosis would/could impact the instructional goals for the student such that the goals of the instructional environment could not be met.
In schools across the country the priority is to generally keep a student in the most mainstream classroom for instruction. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act was also redefined in light of the IDEA classifications of 1990. Students who would not qualify for services or accommodations under IDEA do under the broader definitions applied as part of Section 504. One of the biggest part of this law is the "prohibition against discrimination". And, unlike IDEA which is about classroom and instructional modifcation, the 504 covers students in school, outside of school and during all extracurricular activities. It explicitly prohibits discrimination based on the disability-which in this case can be a "mental impairment".
Many people do not know this, but Anxiety, Anorexia, OCD, Depression, and lots of other psychological diagnoses-that would not otherwise afford a child accommodation under IDEA can qualify them for supports using a 504 Plan, if these diagnoses limit a "child's life activities". Teachers, administrators, and other staff are beholden to the IEPs-individualized education plans and 504's that are used to support students. If you want to examine how SEL, and through it queer and critical theory entered schools. This is how. It can be traced to the noble desire of schools to provide supports to children who were struggling through mental health crisis.
Unfortunately, these programs also brought with them their own problems. The 1990 revision of IDEA shifted the focus from previous legislation. The legislation of the EHA focused on the condition a student had and how the diagnosis would/could impact the instructional goals for the student such that the goals of the instructional environment could not be met. But the 1990 revisions centered services on individuals, rather than their condition. This shifted the conversation and placed new emphasis on individuals over instruction. Instead of being about how a diagnosis could impact the student's development, behavior, and overall classroom instructional environment, it became about how to best mainstream ALL students in the classroom. Today, students are expected to be placed in mainstream classes at all times with support from classroom aids and services, and only excluded from the classroom in exceptional situations. This shift in language and process is what has altered thousands of classroom environments across the United States, and by extension much of the western world.
In schools across the country the priority is to generally keep a student in the mainstream and communal environment. Schools could no longer consider the impact of a singular student on the classroom, school or program environment. Individual customizations carry more weight than what happens when the classrooms or campus environment is fundamentally altered. It does not matter if one student's impact or presence in the classroom interferes with, or in some cases completely destroys, the learning or school environment. These legal changes also created an antagonistic atmosphere where teachers and administrators, who have trained for many years to support student learning, began to develop adversarial relationships with parents who were empowered to use a new and costly process that challenged schools for proactive academic, instructional, AND social-emotional learning supports and policies.
To try to get ahead of the growing legal challenges that were coming, through the 1990s and 2000s districts nationwide adopted preventative strategies. Inclusion, as a goal in and of itself as first propagated in the United States through the EHA and later IDEA are the roots of the bad in-school practices. Social-Emotional Learning (SEL) in schools developed in response to the mainstreaming of students with physical, behavioral, psychological, or other learning differences. The ideology which underpins inclusive classrooms, inclusive learning, and the "Be Nice" philosophy begins with took root in schools through these acts of congress. These were promoted as a way to curb on-campus bullying and violence, in the process the belief has been that these practices would lead to less students requiring services because they would be less depressed, less anxious, less "mentally impaired" for school. Finally in schools across the country, these inclusive implementation practices are evaluated, and given as much weight as test scores, for local, state, and federal funding, school quality rankings, and honors at public school districts nationwide. These scores impact funding decisions, teacher recruitment, and public investment. Districts and schools that are seen as NOT being proactive stand to lose a lot of money, good teachers, and other resources if they do not have high scores for student supports.
I readily acknowledge that many students benefited from this process in the early years. However, with time and hindsight, I would also say that this process had negative externalities including: a decline in curricular expectations, the norms of instruction, behavior management, curricula, and operations management. In classrooms across the country families push for their child to be the recipient of "alternative plans", tutoring or accelerated education which outside of a severe disability that child might generally not qualify for including, modified curricula, accommodations for anxiety, depression, and many other personalized supports.
As a teacher, with special ed certification, I must concede that there are millions of students around the world who undoubtedly benefited from these policies. I am by no means saying that we need to get rid of these laws. They exist because prior to 1973 students were excluded from educational opportunities they should have received. My point is, in the future we must always examine what "progress" was made from these laws in light of the harms they also inadvertently created. Anything that transforms institutions, and this transformed American public education, brings with it unintended consequences. Only now, at the 30+ year mark, can we look back and examine how much learning and school environments were permanently changed when mastery and competence were no longer the sole marker of a school's success.
Absolutely fascinating summary of the (unknown) history -- thank you for that!
As I was reading about the inability of schools to consider the impact of a singular student on the others, it occurred to me that this may (at least partly) explain the persistent underachievement in inner city schools: given the higher rates of social problems (abuse/neglect/drugs/etc.), these mainstreaming requirements, in that environment, may be perpetuating the poor educational outcomes by interfering with the ability of the competent students to learn in their chaotic classrooms. We’re usually told that it’s due to a lack of funding, but those school systems are actually not underfunded. It also helps explain the heart-warming results of charter schools such as the Success Academy (https://nypost.com/2023/07/02/success-academy-excels-on-standardized-tests-despite-democrats-claims/), where these restrictions don’t apply.
As a person who moved to the U.S. in adulthood, I have long been confused by the American tendency to seemingly favour the MINority at the expense of the MAJority, which has reached the most bizarre crescendo in the trans movement, and the no-prosecution D.A.s. From my perspective, that’s just a path to a failing society, where the “most” are treated as the “least”. How we got here from an effort to “reduce discrimination” is absolute folly.
This is enlightening. I had a close friend who, finishing college in San Diego 30 years ago, had some kind of minor in education, where she was exposed to a whole panoply of buzz-phrases for difficult or alternatively-abled students who needed special accommodations. It sounded like a whole subculture or industry of social engineering. Thank de Lawd she never tried to find a place in a public school system. What I recall is that she, or her "professors" were very much on edge about these developments, afraid of getting in trouble for saying the wrong thing or failing to be "inclusive" or pay obeisance to the latest fad. It's more than faddery, I take that back. She'd been in the Navy, too, and there seemed to be a similar program of thought and behavior control going on there as well.
Ooooo, really good point about the music influences, and I’ll add bands like Queen, too. OTOH, though, there were also sex-forward female performers in that time, such as Madonna, Debbie Harry (Blondie), etc. I think we were just a bit more “free” over all, especially in pop culture, which is ironic because the attitudes toward “gayness” were SO much more negative/restrictive back then!
Fashion and style yep it’s all been done before and it’s happily sexy and cool and gorgeous or hideous any which way. I’m woman wife mom always have preferred androgynous outfitting of self ALSO wondered for years what it indicated. Guess where a key presented itself: personality typing. I’m ENTJ almost always profiled as male/masculine as so rare in women. Traits also on par w historical/social male/masculine markers. Was my light bulb flash aha moment
Omg are you me? I'm just luckier to have been born earlier than you. In the 90's I wasn't required to cut off my tits to be the "straight girl who is the queerest of them all". I'm so sorry that we women and foremothers have failed you so badly. This is a genocide against the truest heterodox.
This story will become all too common in the years ahead. The current fad of boys and girls transitioning is being taken less seriously by the medical profession and regarded as just another elective procedure like a facelift. Doctors and surgeons well know that emotional and physical maturity should play a vital role, but the money is too tempting apparently. I was pleased to hear England’s facility specializing in the practice closed its doors recently and I hope the trend continues here. There is mounting evidence that transitioning is not the cure all for what these vulnerable young people are experiencing and could likely make things worse. It’s unfortunate that stories like this author’s which serve to warn others of the potential consequences of transitioning are completely ignored or buried by mainstream media who proudly wave the rainbow colors at every opportunity.
Wow! You are AWESOME!!! I’m 70 and recognize all of the things you went through (minus the double mastectomy.) I’m so glad that you and women in your age group have evolved at warp speed compared to earlier generations. We really need your deep and tested wisdom is this world. May you be surrounded by flocks of nature spirits and angels and benign wise beings from the future. Onward!
Laura, I'm so glad you're speaking out. Your powerful message will help thousands of troubled teenage girls (and boys).
This is great and I think your latest photos are really cute.
FWIW when I was about 10 (way back when over 5 decades ago), I remember feeling absolute *relief* that I was female, because I could wear purple if I wanted to and my brothers couldn't, really. Not that they wanted to; I did.
I think the most important lesson in the world is that nobody has to conform their character to a stereotype. The important qualities we admire, of strength and courage, of compassion and care, of kindness and protection for the weak, belong to everybody. As a female I despise the catty manipulative stereotypes that some people think mean "feminine." To blazes with them.
You write: "Whether born as female or male, we have the burden and honor of accepting life and making the most of our unique gifts." 100%. This is a spiritual journey, and I hope that takes you forward.
Peace.
I love your creative funky aesthetic. I was a lot like you when I was a kid - I was a “weird girl”, had a lot of issues with anxiety and depression, liked to wear strange clothes, wasn’t “conventionally pretty” like the tan, blonde, fashionable popular girls, had a strange obsession with military history, didn’t like uncomfortable/dumb fashions, and hung out with all the weirdos. It is likely that I am on the spectrum, as two of my three kids are.
Fortunately, back then in 70s and 80s, this was considered just being a weird girl and while my male friends used to joke that I was an “honorary dude”, it would have never occurred to me or anyone else that I should “transition”. I was lucky in that my mom was an old-school feminist who celebrated the fact that girls (and boys!) no longer had to conform to the rigid stereotypes that she had to when she was growing up. She never tried to force me to dress or act more “feminine”. I really think all this gender stuff is extremely regressive.
I am 100% heterosexual, have been married to a man for 30 years and have three kids. However, I used to always get mistaken for a lesbian, I guess because I like tattoos and piercings and masculine-ish clothes. It does make me think that if I was a teen today, I’d probably feel pressured to be trans or non-binary or something because of my love of flannel shirts and short hair.
A few of my young adult daughters’ friends have gone through a trans or non-binary stage (fortunately, none have done anything irreversible...yet) and all of them remind me so much of myself when I was a kid. Just weird girls who need to grow into themselves and realize they don’t have to be “girly” to be a girl.
What a tremendous story. So interesting. Self actualization and self-love are harder than ever in our AI generated society with confusing for profit medical practices. I love the work you’re doing- you are a generous gift to the world.
You’re a rock star 🌟. I hope you’re celebrating your unique path to self discovery and wish you all the success in life moving forward. 🦋
Just.. Wow! Free to Be You and Me. Magical story.
She writes very well. I am concerned, however, by how “performative” her entire journey seems to be. Maybe this is typical for the Instagram generation??? Are we raising our children to lack depth of understanding and meaning? How should we fight this going forward?
Granted, as a person on the spectrum and with other mental health issues (abuse), her emotional maturity would have been slower to develop, but why was that not taken into account in her pre-transition evaluation? The really useful thing about her account is how it demonstrates the wisdom the “old” way of handling gender dysforia (psychological evaluation over a period of time while the person “tries out” living publicly as the opposite gender). It also shows how quickly the “authorities” nowadays answer every question about discomfort with puberty with “gender”.
Incredibly sad about how much we’re adding to the struggles of those who need more help.
I had the same thoughts.
It's tragic that women's natural life transitions, which are often fraught and difficult, are being medicalized.Whether it's entering puberty, motherhood, menopause, or old age, we're told that a drug or surgery or hormones or diet or make-up or hair dye will make us a better woman, a more attractive woman, a more normal woman.
We need to learn to manage and ease these transitions in ways that respects our bodies and our inner selves, otherwise girls will keep thinking it's easier to transition into being male than to go through the transition of becoming a woman.
You are a beautiful young and funky woman with Kate Winslet eyes. Thank you for writing about your journey to self-acceptance. A thought struck me as I read that perhaps creative children are a primary target of the gender world. Those who are creative see meaning in symbols, colors and style. They can see things I, as a very uncreative woman, cannot see. Clothes never had any meaning for me outside of being there to cover my body and keep me comfortable. I understood societal norms and mostly complied with those norms, but always dressed for comfort first, appearance somewhere dead last. I'm 62 and haven't changed, although I will, for my husband's sake, take time on appearance if going out together. What you've been through will make you a better mother than many, and you will know how to love and protect your children.
Glad to hear your story has a happy ending, and very much appreciate you doing the super important work of telling it to the world. It's not surprising you finally 'settled' into your true self at age 25, since that's when the brain has fully developed. Welcome back (to womanhood)!
I love how you were able to map out your whole journey, and, while I'm sure it was way more complex and nuanced than even your very detailed account can describe, you've given enough information for anyone to see the reality. The current societal messaging and omnipresence of "gender" and medical "solutions" to the "problem" of growing up and into ourselves is destructive and only makes things worse. Luckily, you have found your way out of that whole mess relatively whole and unscathed (not to diminish in any way the seriousness of losing body parts and suffering whatever the results may be of years of synthetic testosterone). As a parent of a daughter going through similar struggles, I'm so happy to hear a story with a hopeful message!
Fascinating. I am at least a decade older, and I wonder if the hyper-sexualization of girls in the late ought's drove this narrowing of definitions. Looking back at David Bowie, Prince, Annie Lenox, Sinead O'Connor, the omnipresence of grunge androgyny, and the kilts and skirts of Korn, Jack White, and Marilyn Manson in the late 90s/early 2000s, people were allowed to express more gender non-conformance.
Have our interpretations of gender today become so narrow and performative? How can society reset so aesthetic preferences are just that-preferences of choice and design and not functions of identity?
But aesthetic preferences are also functions of identity, no? I think there will always be pressure to conform to some norm in any society and this is also not neccesarily a bad thing. These days we talk as if any kind of norm is by definition bad. There has to be a middle road. If you are a woman and you want to have success in the dating world, find a good man, start a family, you'll simply have an easier time at it by adhering at least somewhat to your "female identity" and the aesthetics that go along with that. Or you can rebel against the norm and dress and behave "like a man" if you so want, but the reality is that most men instinctively will not find that attractive. Of course the same goes for men. If you want to be succesful in finding a wife, you'll definitely increase your chances by adhering to certain norms of male behaviour, which at least in part exist because these are the kind of traits and behaviours that most women find attractive and are most beneficial to living a life of value and purpose, for yourself and for society as a whole.
If people want to express themselves in different ways from the norm, of course that should be possible and people should not be attacked or shamed or anything like that.
The problem arises when people start thinking "I should be able to go against the norm while still having all the benefits that come from adhering to said norm. I should not be judged, or ever be made to feel different". While this would perhaps be a nice utopia, it is basically wishing the world to be the way you want it to be, instead of taking it as it is.
This is not the 1950's anymore. We all have quite a lot of room for individual expression and norms aren't nearly as strict as they once were. This is a good thing in many ways, although looking at old photographs of regular people on the street in cities from a century ago also makes one somewhat nostalgic for a time when men looked like men and women looked like women (and buildings looked like things actually designed by and for humans).
I've read several times women today are less happy than the generation of their grandmothers, with all it's "restrictive" gender norms. Men are also less happy because too many women try to be "like men" and deny their femininity. Not because they really want to, but because current social narratives tell them that they should be, in order to be "equal".
The narrowing of definitions you mentioned is shown in the rise of identity politics and obsession with labelling that's important in gender theory. Where are you on the "gender spectrum", i.e., what's your label? That's such a damaging, divisive regression that's it's hard to fathom how it gained traction in schools and with anyone considered to be progressive. It's also opened the door to a gross expansion of "Pride" to all manner of sexual fetishes, including pedophilia, recently renamed minor-attracted persons (MAPs). "Leave the kids alone" can't become the standard too soon.
You specifically asked how it gained traction in schools. That is something I can lay out:
Let’s go back to the 1970s. While the schools of the 1960s were concerned with desegregation but public schools in the 1970s had to deal with a new reckoning from the 1973 Rehabilitation Act, which codified vocational rehabilitation for individuals with disabilities. The is the act of law that transformed schools, by creating Section 504. Section 504 was the very first act that required schools to provide opportunities for students and adults with disabilities. 504 defined disabilities as “Any person who (a) has a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more of such person's major life activities, (b) has a record of such an impairment, or (c) is regarded as having such an impairment.” The effects of this are long reaching, not the least because they mandate how schools must accommodate students. This law was further codified and expanded in 1975’s Education for All Handicapped Children Act.
In the '70s children were segregated into different educational programs and facilities for a number of reasons. This included students who were of low-intelligence and those with severe psychological and emotional regulation disorders. In the 1970s many of these children, especially those who were deaf, blind, or with physical disabilities, were not educated at all. Initially this law had noble intentions to "mainstream" children who had previously been excluded from accessing educational services including children who were blind, deaf, and those with physical disabilities.
The EHA established the right for all students to be placed in their Least Restrictive Environment for school to ensure they had access to the same "high quality instruction" as students in mainstream classrooms. At the time there was a high focus on the condition a student had and how the diagnosis would/could impact the instructional goals for the student such that the goals of the instructional environment could not be met.
In schools across the country the priority is to generally keep a student in the most mainstream classroom for instruction. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act was also redefined in light of the IDEA classifications of 1990. Students who would not qualify for services or accommodations under IDEA do under the broader definitions applied as part of Section 504. One of the biggest part of this law is the "prohibition against discrimination". And, unlike IDEA which is about classroom and instructional modifcation, the 504 covers students in school, outside of school and during all extracurricular activities. It explicitly prohibits discrimination based on the disability-which in this case can be a "mental impairment".
Many people do not know this, but Anxiety, Anorexia, OCD, Depression, and lots of other psychological diagnoses-that would not otherwise afford a child accommodation under IDEA can qualify them for supports using a 504 Plan, if these diagnoses limit a "child's life activities". Teachers, administrators, and other staff are beholden to the IEPs-individualized education plans and 504's that are used to support students. If you want to examine how SEL, and through it queer and critical theory entered schools. This is how. It can be traced to the noble desire of schools to provide supports to children who were struggling through mental health crisis.
Unfortunately, these programs also brought with them their own problems. The 1990 revision of IDEA shifted the focus from previous legislation. The legislation of the EHA focused on the condition a student had and how the diagnosis would/could impact the instructional goals for the student such that the goals of the instructional environment could not be met. But the 1990 revisions centered services on individuals, rather than their condition. This shifted the conversation and placed new emphasis on individuals over instruction. Instead of being about how a diagnosis could impact the student's development, behavior, and overall classroom instructional environment, it became about how to best mainstream ALL students in the classroom. Today, students are expected to be placed in mainstream classes at all times with support from classroom aids and services, and only excluded from the classroom in exceptional situations. This shift in language and process is what has altered thousands of classroom environments across the United States, and by extension much of the western world.
In schools across the country the priority is to generally keep a student in the mainstream and communal environment. Schools could no longer consider the impact of a singular student on the classroom, school or program environment. Individual customizations carry more weight than what happens when the classrooms or campus environment is fundamentally altered. It does not matter if one student's impact or presence in the classroom interferes with, or in some cases completely destroys, the learning or school environment. These legal changes also created an antagonistic atmosphere where teachers and administrators, who have trained for many years to support student learning, began to develop adversarial relationships with parents who were empowered to use a new and costly process that challenged schools for proactive academic, instructional, AND social-emotional learning supports and policies.
To try to get ahead of the growing legal challenges that were coming, through the 1990s and 2000s districts nationwide adopted preventative strategies. Inclusion, as a goal in and of itself as first propagated in the United States through the EHA and later IDEA are the roots of the bad in-school practices. Social-Emotional Learning (SEL) in schools developed in response to the mainstreaming of students with physical, behavioral, psychological, or other learning differences. The ideology which underpins inclusive classrooms, inclusive learning, and the "Be Nice" philosophy begins with took root in schools through these acts of congress. These were promoted as a way to curb on-campus bullying and violence, in the process the belief has been that these practices would lead to less students requiring services because they would be less depressed, less anxious, less "mentally impaired" for school. Finally in schools across the country, these inclusive implementation practices are evaluated, and given as much weight as test scores, for local, state, and federal funding, school quality rankings, and honors at public school districts nationwide. These scores impact funding decisions, teacher recruitment, and public investment. Districts and schools that are seen as NOT being proactive stand to lose a lot of money, good teachers, and other resources if they do not have high scores for student supports.
I readily acknowledge that many students benefited from this process in the early years. However, with time and hindsight, I would also say that this process had negative externalities including: a decline in curricular expectations, the norms of instruction, behavior management, curricula, and operations management. In classrooms across the country families push for their child to be the recipient of "alternative plans", tutoring or accelerated education which outside of a severe disability that child might generally not qualify for including, modified curricula, accommodations for anxiety, depression, and many other personalized supports.
As a teacher, with special ed certification, I must concede that there are millions of students around the world who undoubtedly benefited from these policies. I am by no means saying that we need to get rid of these laws. They exist because prior to 1973 students were excluded from educational opportunities they should have received. My point is, in the future we must always examine what "progress" was made from these laws in light of the harms they also inadvertently created. Anything that transforms institutions, and this transformed American public education, brings with it unintended consequences. Only now, at the 30+ year mark, can we look back and examine how much learning and school environments were permanently changed when mastery and competence were no longer the sole marker of a school's success.
Absolutely fascinating summary of the (unknown) history -- thank you for that!
As I was reading about the inability of schools to consider the impact of a singular student on the others, it occurred to me that this may (at least partly) explain the persistent underachievement in inner city schools: given the higher rates of social problems (abuse/neglect/drugs/etc.), these mainstreaming requirements, in that environment, may be perpetuating the poor educational outcomes by interfering with the ability of the competent students to learn in their chaotic classrooms. We’re usually told that it’s due to a lack of funding, but those school systems are actually not underfunded. It also helps explain the heart-warming results of charter schools such as the Success Academy (https://nypost.com/2023/07/02/success-academy-excels-on-standardized-tests-despite-democrats-claims/), where these restrictions don’t apply.
As a person who moved to the U.S. in adulthood, I have long been confused by the American tendency to seemingly favour the MINority at the expense of the MAJority, which has reached the most bizarre crescendo in the trans movement, and the no-prosecution D.A.s. From my perspective, that’s just a path to a failing society, where the “most” are treated as the “least”. How we got here from an effort to “reduce discrimination” is absolute folly.
This is enlightening. I had a close friend who, finishing college in San Diego 30 years ago, had some kind of minor in education, where she was exposed to a whole panoply of buzz-phrases for difficult or alternatively-abled students who needed special accommodations. It sounded like a whole subculture or industry of social engineering. Thank de Lawd she never tried to find a place in a public school system. What I recall is that she, or her "professors" were very much on edge about these developments, afraid of getting in trouble for saying the wrong thing or failing to be "inclusive" or pay obeisance to the latest fad. It's more than faddery, I take that back. She'd been in the Navy, too, and there seemed to be a similar program of thought and behavior control going on there as well.
Ooooo, really good point about the music influences, and I’ll add bands like Queen, too. OTOH, though, there were also sex-forward female performers in that time, such as Madonna, Debbie Harry (Blondie), etc. I think we were just a bit more “free” over all, especially in pop culture, which is ironic because the attitudes toward “gayness” were SO much more negative/restrictive back then!
Fashion and style yep it’s all been done before and it’s happily sexy and cool and gorgeous or hideous any which way. I’m woman wife mom always have preferred androgynous outfitting of self ALSO wondered for years what it indicated. Guess where a key presented itself: personality typing. I’m ENTJ almost always profiled as male/masculine as so rare in women. Traits also on par w historical/social male/masculine markers. Was my light bulb flash aha moment
Made total sense
Omg are you me? I'm just luckier to have been born earlier than you. In the 90's I wasn't required to cut off my tits to be the "straight girl who is the queerest of them all". I'm so sorry that we women and foremothers have failed you so badly. This is a genocide against the truest heterodox.
This story will become all too common in the years ahead. The current fad of boys and girls transitioning is being taken less seriously by the medical profession and regarded as just another elective procedure like a facelift. Doctors and surgeons well know that emotional and physical maturity should play a vital role, but the money is too tempting apparently. I was pleased to hear England’s facility specializing in the practice closed its doors recently and I hope the trend continues here. There is mounting evidence that transitioning is not the cure all for what these vulnerable young people are experiencing and could likely make things worse. It’s unfortunate that stories like this author’s which serve to warn others of the potential consequences of transitioning are completely ignored or buried by mainstream media who proudly wave the rainbow colors at every opportunity.
Wow! You are AWESOME!!! I’m 70 and recognize all of the things you went through (minus the double mastectomy.) I’m so glad that you and women in your age group have evolved at warp speed compared to earlier generations. We really need your deep and tested wisdom is this world. May you be surrounded by flocks of nature spirits and angels and benign wise beings from the future. Onward!