‘Janet and John’: Intersex Invisibility in the New Zealand Education Curriculum

Abstract

When I entered the New Zealand schooling system, we only learnt about a social system including ‘Janet’ and ‘John’—female and male. As far as the curriculum went, nothing else existed. Though the education system now includes ‘rainbow education’ under ‘health’ (sometimes tied into the physical education part of the curriculum), it does not extend beyond that. It continues to enforce Intersex as a pathology, an anomaly. Outside this very small component, Intersex does not exist. The Western education system has excluded Intersex and transgender existence and belonging in society even though historically they were part of society and still exist today, though largely invisible. The chapter will first explore the right to education and the importance of representation in the curriculum as a sense of belonging. After that it sets out how Intersex people have been restricted in the inclusion and predominantly are invisible in the curriculum overall. Later it will consider ways to improve how intersex can be better represented and included within the curriculum.

1. Introduction

The first books in my hand at school had two characters—Janet and John [1]. Fifty years later the memories of those books and what they represented still sit with me. Those picture books with few words established for me, and society at the same time, the normative foundations of sex and its social functions.

Growing up in New Zealand in the 1970–1980s, I experienced the Aotearoa New Zealand (AoNZ) curriculum which represented society as either being ‘Janet’ or ‘John’—male or female. Throughout the curriculum, be it science, literature, or any other subject area, there was no other understanding of any other possibility. Though I had no word for it at the time, I knew I was different and could not comprehend why. Intersex was not represented and as I have since discovered was intentionally erased from society. The education system has an important part to play in the process of this erasure.

The education system is more than a neutral place of factual education. Though education has a physical site, education itself is a ‘site’, a construct to administer and optimise, that subjects students to precise controls and comprehensive regulations [2, 3]. Within such a site, students learn to construct their biopolitical realities of how they see themselves and the relationships that they will form [2, 3].

Michel Foucault points out in his many works that the administration of bodies occurred through the developed biopolitical institutions including universities, schools, barracks, and workshops and so on [2]. These institutions are the sites of normalisation and the development of a sense of self in the social realm. The normalisation and socialisation instilled that there are particular bodies, knowledges, ways of knowing, and ways of being which are valued above others [4]. The entire education system continues to be an instrument in the administration of bodies and their socialisation. The system validates the types of life that are validated and those they negate or indicate as abnormal [4].

Foucault, in The History of Sexuality, highlights how sex is an important site of biopolitics. Sex, or what has now been mainstreamed as gender, as a binary ‘male’ or ‘female’ has always been central to the site (place) of biopolitical administration. It has long been used to administer and normalise the sexed/gendered being [3]. However, the biopolitical mechanisms are often distributed unequally, and in different ways, across race, class, sex/sexuality [4]. They are sometimes implemented and applied overtly, but often covertly. The idea of ‘Janet’ and ‘John’ is an example of a site of covert normalisation. The core function is to maintain the institutions of social organisation of which sex, now gender, has been constructed as either male or female.

Given the biopolitical history implemented through the institution of education, it is no surprise that ‘Intersex’ is not represented in the education system or the curriculum. The enigma of Intersex people has always disrupted the notion that there are only males or females [5]. Despite existing in traditional societies including in Europe, since the Middle Ages, Intersex people have been denoted as monstrous and sub-human [6, 7, 8]. They were required to align with a male or female being with severe consequences if not adhering to that status [6, 9]. Since the eighteenth century, they slowly changed from monstrous, sub-humans to humans in need of medical help to finish what nature had not completed—the age of medicalisation [5].

Intersex people are those who have diverse sex characteristics not clearly definable as male or female (that is, they have genitals, reproductive organs, secondary sex characteristics, hormones and chromosomes that fall outside the common definitions of either male or female sex) [10, 11]. Intersex people should not be confused with sexual orientation or gender identity as doing so often leads to further prejudice and discrimination against Intersex persons [12]. Though for hundreds of years they were distinct embodied beings, today they are recognised, at most, as gendered beings with variations of sex characteristics.

Being included in the education system means being able to go to school, to be seen at school, be able to participate equally in activities—but also to exist in the curriculum. This chapter outlines the available work and provides a basis for more in-depth analysis in the future. In the field of education, including the curriculum, there is a significant study and changes required to ensure that education is inclusive and representative of Intersex people.

The chapter is a perspective piece considering the positionality and representation of Intersex people in the curriculum of AoNZ and more globally. It sets out some of the issues regarding the curriculum that would be appropriate to follow up with a qualitative study. As a perspective piece, it begins with the author’s experience in childhood to set the scene. It then outlines the right to education with its basis in international human rights. It then follows on to indicate that the right to education requires representation of people in the curriculum to be represented and have a sense of belonging. After that it sets out how Intersex people have been restricted in the inclusion and predominantly are invisible in the curriculum overall. Later it will consider ways to improve how intersex can be better represented and included within the curriculum. It provides the background for further research and evaluation as to the inclusion of Intersex people in the curriculum and in the education system in general.

2. Right to education

Like all children, Intersex children have a right to education [13]. They also have a right to be seen within the education system and the curriculum itself. Much of the focus of human rights to education focuses on the right to access education, but there is also a specific right to human development within the right to education that is seldom enlarged upon in these discussions. Though the majority of Intersex people access education in AoNZ, they have impacts on their development as a human being due to their invisibility in the education system and in particular the school curriculum.

Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights specifies the right to education. Sub-part (1) discusses access and equity to education and sub-part (3) enumerates that a parent has the right to choose where a child is educated. Sub-part (2) concentrates on the right to education and where and how it should be directed:

“Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.”

This focus is reiterated in the International Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Article 13(1) states that “The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to education. They agree that education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and the sense of its dignity, and shall strengthen the respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.”

Education must focus on preparing an environment for the development of a child’s being and it must be towards a state of dignity. AoNZ, like the vast majority of countries around the world, is a signatory to the Convention. Though it has not ratified the Convention domestically, it still has obligations to uphold the Covenant and focus on the development of the personality, that is, to enable the development of the child in dignity.

So, what does this mean in relation to this chapter? The school or educational environment must enable a person to grow, development in their humanity. ‘To freely and fully develop one’s personality’ requires first being recognised. Full development demands an environment that enables the recognised person to develop as their personality and then participate in society as a dignified person. The education system, its physical environment, curriculum, and materials must represent them appropriately and be culturally accountable. All of these factors are required to comply with the human rights article.

Despite signing up to the Conventions, not all populations in AoNZ enjoy the right to education in the same fair and equitable manner for example across class, race and sex/gender. Intersex people, in particular, have not enjoyed such a right to free and full development of their personality, especially not in dignity. For Intersex people, none of these requirements have been actualised within the school environment. The curriculum does not represent Intersex people and where it does so in a limited way it is not socially or culturally accountable. The education system as a whole is not structured for anything outside of enabling a male-female mode of development.

3. Importance of being included and represented in the curriculum

Representation is being seen within the social and political environment. A lack of representation, being seen, portrays such groups or populations as their being is under threat, not valued, or part of the out group [14]. Representation makes them feel fully understood and considered rather than making them feel like they are part of a token inclusion initiative without authentic representation [15]. This is an important part of being human whether it is race, sex, ethnicity, disability, class, or other ways of understanding. Not seeing oneself within sociopolitical life inhibits the participation and dignity of people, and thus their human rights [13].

The curriculum is a site of biopolitical normalisation. It is the organising device within educational institutions for framing and classifying knowledge [16]. As Judith Butler notes it is a site of heteronormativity and socialisation [17]. Through critical analysis of the curriculum, it is possible to understand what worldview the children are learning within and how it becomes part of their development. The curriculum engages in normalisation and socialisation by framing particular knowledge, illustrating what is acceptable [16].

The curriculum has been critiqued as exclusionary, where people are not seen within it for various reasons. The curriculum is a representation of produced signs from other sources, but also a site of sign production in its own right [18]. The modern curriculum now attempts to represent people from different ethnicities, religions, and increasingly (dis)abilities. There is also a mainstreaming of gender in the curriculum. However, despite all the work to improve diversity and inclusion, Intersex people are still largely invisible, misunderstood with their needs not considered within the curriculum and the school environment [19, 20, 21].

Representation in the curriculum is indicative of a sense of belonging and safety. The AoNZ education system is based on a principle that every learner deserves to feel like they belong in their school and classroom [22]. The Ministry of Education in New Zealand states that children learn best when they feel accepted and enjoy positive relationships with their teachers and fellow students [23]. Most teachers and administrative staff wish to provide such an environment [24]. There is an overall attempt to provide a space where children can grow and develop to their potential, but lack meaningful insight.

It has long been recognised that for a child to feel like they belong, it is important that they see themselves represented in the education system at various levels including in the curriculum [25, 26]. Māori (the Indigenous people of New Zealand), for example, have not been well represented in the curriculum and evidence has shown that lack of representation results in limited development and failure to achieve potential [27]. As better representation in the curriculum occurred, greater learning outcomes for Māori students followed [25, 26].

For many years LGBT students have reported feeling less safe, less respected, and less valued in our schools than their heterosexual and cisgender peers, leading to lower engagement and achievement [24]. For at least the last 10 years, there has been a policy shift to ensure that LGBT students feel safe and comfortable within the education environment in Aotearoa as in many other nations [22, 28, 29].

Though Intersex are being included in the acronym LGBTI, the success in making Intersex people feel safe and comfortable is less successful than the other parts of the LGBT populations. As elsewhere, there has been varying success in making Intersex children comfortable to develop into their potential [30]. Intersex people still feel insecure and uncomfortable in the education environment [31]. They need to have a positive experience and be able to positively participate [13]. Though some may have a positive experience at school, a significant number report a negative school experience [31, 32].

Another issue regarding Intersex students was participation at school and completion of their school studies or even moving to higher education. The shame and secrecy of being Intersex compounds the effects of medical treatment and has a direct impact on an Intersex student’s participation [13, 31]. A significant number do not continue to higher education and many do not even complete secondary/high school [31, 32].

Representation in the curriculum is critical for the free and full development of the child in dignity [13, 33]. To have a full and free development, the child must be in an education environment where they feel safe and comfortable and have a sense of belonging. Without that, development is inhibited and impinge the child’s dignity is impinged. The following section outlines a number of factors that are inhibiting Intersex people from being represented and having a sense of belonging within the curriculum in AoNZ.

4. Barriers to intersex inclusion in the curriculum

There are numerous barriers to Intersex inclusion in the curriculum. These include the heteronormative basis, the mainstreaming of gender, focus on sex (and relationships) education for diversity, the confusion of Intersex people with LGBT learning.

4.1 Heteronormativity basis

The education system overall represents a heterosexual social system that supports and upholds the heteronormative biopolitical institution as noted by Foucault [2] and Butler [17]. Even with so much discussion of diversity in the year 2022, the core base that Foucault outlines in society still predominates in the system and the curriculum.

AoNZ’s educational curriculum remains heteronormative. It was established for, and centred on, a white, middle-class binary heteronormative person. It is a system of performativity as noted by Judith Butler and represented as such in the curricula [17]. The colonial construct that has been seen as ordinary, natural, and universal remains core to the heteronormative institution [34].

The idea of ‘Janet and John’ that was introduced in the early years of school life cemented in a child’s mind that there are only two kinds of human—male or female. Janet and John became the representative heteronormative structures. Those ideas are embedded throughout all subjects and materials and throughout the education system and its curriculum. The curriculum does not state explicitly the embedded heteronormative nature but rather it is threaded through in subtle, and sometimes not so subtle, ways. Heteronormativity is socialised within the school community and the education system.

Students learn that there are ‘opposite’ sexes in line with a two-sex binary model of male or female [11]. Even with the growing acceptance of same-sex relationships, it has not removed the centrality of the binary sexes. The curriculum is a site of biopolitical enforcement of legitimate and normalised forms of sexuality, gender and sex characteristics [19].

The background of heterosexuality in the curriculum has led to vilification of LGBT students for deviating from the norm [19]. Even those do not come out are aware of how the curriculum frames those who deviate from the norm and how such people are marginalised. Butler notes the heterosexuality and its vilification of those outside and societies focus on the performativity of gender [17]. However, her analysis is based on the social construction of gender, as opposed to Foucault who still considered it through the unified nature of sex. Butler’s focus on gender has restricted the ability to include Intersex children (or people in general).

The heterosexual bounds of the curriculum leave little space for Intersex people. The core basis of the curriculum is biological determinism and as such has no space for the diversity of sex. The denial of diversity continues to make Intersex invisible.

4.2 Mainstreaming of gender in the curriculum

Heterosexuality was an important tool for maintaining the site of sex as a biopolitical device. Covertly or overtly, sex continues to be a central mechanism in the socialisation and administration of bodies. This came under fire with biological determinism of sex and race falling out of favour. It was at the time of structural functionalism which is a theoretical framework that considered social order could be maintained through the socialisation of individuals into normative behaviours [35, 36] and the malleability of human beings [3, 37].

From the late 1970s, feminists began to introduce gender as a concept of understanding social sex organisation and relationships. It enabled an analysis of social and political inequalities without relying on biological determinism [37]. This was supported by works such as Butler on the performativity of gender [17]. This has led to a shift in concept and terminology in the curriculum which has shifted over time.

The introduction of gender did not remove the binary at its foundations [38]. The patriarchal base remained [3, 37, 39]. What did change was that biological connections were debased and the base was solely determined by social determinants (based on that male-female binary) and the psychological basis of ‘I am who I determine myself to be’ [3, 37, 40]. The patriarchal base has continued to maintain the biopolitical site of sex but reframed through gender.

The concept was introduced into the curriculum in a benign sense. Sex refers to biology while gender refers to how you identify and also the expression as masculine, feminine, both or neither [41]. Separating biology enabled the focus of gender rather than sex as the cause of social issues. Gender became the focus for teaching and since the 2000s, gender has been the mainstream construct to discuss social organisation and relationships. Children begin to learn the concept through infographics such as the gender bread person, the unicorn or the gender elephant [42]. They are taught the institution of gender as though it has existed since time began [37]. The reality is it does have a history and a disturbing one for Intersex people. Gender cannot be fully understood outside of why and how it was introduced [43].

The establishment of gender, mainstreaming and using it as an analysis is not benign and has a much more complex and destructive background for some people [44]. Children do not learn how and why we went from sex to gender and this extends into higher levels of learning. The mainstreaming of gender further dislocates Intersex people from social life. Not only was it established as a means to coerce their body and being into the binary of male or female (Janet and John), but also ensure that they were socialised as such. Intersex people, and the rest of society were not to know that people exist outside of the binary. This was not an accident, but a purposeful means of biopolitics in which the education system had a large part to play [3, 37, 44].

This further removes Intersex children from finding themselves in a curriculum. The curriculum implies that even if biology is taught as diverse, it is not the core element of identity and is thus limited in relevance. The benign sense in which gender is taught denies the historical impact on Intersex people and continues to promote a simplistic surface level understanding [44]. This continues to make Intersex people invisible and, at best, ignores the erasure of Intersex in society—as it was designed to do.

4.3 Sexual health education—limited representation

The education curriculum overall situates students in an environment that remains predominantly heterosexual. They learn sex-based relational roles within the educational system through both the direct and hidden school curriculum as they relate to sex and puberty [11]. These more explicit details are covered in the curriculum areas of sexuality education.

Sexuality education has traditionally been thought of as teaching about abstinence and contraception [45]. Foucault outlines much of the basis behind such thoughts in the History of Sexuality [2]. Though there has been a change over time to healthy relationships, the AoNZ education system has had a shared history as Foucault describes and it is incorporated as such today [21].

Currently, sexuality education is much wider in what is included. It is defined as teaching about intimate relationships, human sexual anatomy, sexual reproduction, sexually transmitted infections, sexual activity, sexual orientation, gender identity, abstinence, contraception, and reproductive rights and responsibilities [46, 47]. Such inclusion attempts to ensure that young people have the information they need to make healthy and informed choices [47]. The current policy includes a wider framework based on “Te Tiriti o Waitangi (The Treaty of Waitangi), Indigenous knowledge and human rights; attention to issues of bullying and inclusion; and the responsibility of schools to address gender and sexual diversity” (p. 134) [48].

As sex diversity has become more accepted, understanding of LGBT issues have been incorporated in the sexual health curriculum. Though the education system now includes ‘rainbow education’ for LGBT under ‘health’, it does not extend beyond that. There is a visionary desire to be inclusive and supportive in sexuality education, but it is often limited. Sexuality education is still predominantly based in heterosexuality and it is also based in gender, even with the appearance of gender having may various expressions, has a foundation of male or female.

Intersex is seldom included in sexuality education. When it is included, it is the predominant focus highlighting the definitions and variations of what ‘being intersex is’. It still isolates Intersex children from feeling normal [21] or embodied [49]. Sexuality education remains heteronormative in focus, privileges males and female people’s bodies and experiences, and reinforces the ‘feeling of shame, secrecy, not existing at all or being a fraud at a vulnerable age’ [20, 50]. Students born with an Intersex variation face significant harm (e.g., are subject to ignorance, indifference, stigmatisation, discrimination, mistreatment, violence, abuse, shaming and denial of existence) in schooling spaces, including in sexuality education [20].

Teachers have a lack of understanding, competence, and confidence in sexuality education regarding Intersex people, their body, needs, impacts of medicalization [31]. There is also a need for teachers to be culturally aware and accountable to enable the reclaiming of the cultural identity as an Intersex person [21]. There needs to be an informed and supportive system with a whole of school approach to include Intersex discourses in sexuality education [20].

4.4 Confusion with LGBT

Where Intersex is included in education, it is predominantly in connection with the LGBT part of the curriculum, usually in conjunction with sexual health and relationships. The acronym is extending and now often includes the ‘I” for Intersex. Any education in this space that incudes the “I” seldom does more than that and gives a false sense that it is a type of gender identity with the person also having ‘variation of sex characteristics’ [12].

The bulk of education revolves around gender identity and sexual orientation issues. There is an assumption that Intersex people may have variations of sex characteristics that differ from the normative, but have the same gender identity and sexual orientation issues as with the rest of the Rainbow community. This assumption disregards the impact of medicalisation and socialisation on Intersex people and operates to universalize them within the Rainbow community. It teaches diversity solely from a Western, liberal perspective and medical underpinnings [44].

Universalising Intersex people within the LGBT understanding of society has impacts including further discrimination, spiritual alienation, and entrenching social oppression [12]. Research suggests that such conflation and lack of clarity leads to further prejudice and discrimination against Intersex persons [10, 12]. Rather than helping to overcome Intersex discrimination, it enhances misinformation, stereotypes and myths circulating about Intersex People and the violence they face [10].

The confusion that universalizing within the LGBT community creates is the reduction of being Intersex to just a ‘sex characteristic’ (though varied from the norm) and that the importance is in their identity as a gender identity. It leaves Intersex people in a vulnerable position with some advocates arguing that Intersex is not a gender identity and not a third sex [20]. In this context, Intersex children have difficulty in coming to terms in who they are and how they fit into society.

4.5 Current curriculum and intersex people

The current curriculum continues to make Intersex people largely invisible. As the core curriculum is still based on a heterosexual order, the ‘Janet and John’ ideas of society still penetrate student’s mind. Students absorb the assumption that bodies still come in two types—males and female. When students hear about Intersex variations and bodies, they interpret them as states of abnormality and difference that translate as non-humanness. Even where, though rare, a students knows of their Intersex variation, they feel the shame and stigmatisation of their bodies that does not fit what is portrayed in the curriculum or demonstrated in the bodies of the children around them.

Even where Intersex is included in the sexual education curriculum, it still enforces the medicalised understanding of being that was created through gender and gender identity and denies any sense of embodiment as Intersex people. Young Intersex people have come to adopt the language of Western medicalisation socialised by feminists as that is all that they know. It is long enough for invisibility and is it not time for change? It is time to start representing Intersex people in the curriculum so that Intersex children can see themselves as part of society.

5. Including intersex representation in the curricula

AoNZ requires the curriculum to ensure diversity of representation, but ‘Janet and John’ are still the story the children learn at school. Diversity still remains an add-on rather than core to a diverse curriculum. As an Intersex person, I was never represented or felt included in the curriculum and not much has changed today.

AoNZ is not alone—Australia has no policy providing guidelines on how to make education accessible for people with Intersex variations [51]. Inclusion of ‘Intersex’ that is informed and supportive in curriculum and pedagogy is generally lacking [20]. Such a lack translates into and maintains Intersex invisibility in school settings and means that the needs of students with an Intersex variation are not addressed [20]. Despite the promotion of affirmative gender and sexual diversity, there remains an uncomfortable silence on Intersex bodies [19].

When including Intersex in the curricula the first point is to remember that due to the historical treatment, not all Intersex people will understand themselves in the same way. The term ‘Intersex’ is contested [52]. Some see themselves today as men or women who have a medical condition (referred to as a ‘difference or disorder of sex development’ or DSD). Others see themselves as a person with a gender identity (male, female, non-binary) and having a variation of sex characteristics. There are others who see themselves as Intersex, neither male nor female, some even reclaiming the cultural notion of hermaphrodite. As with males and females who have complex notions of how they see themselves and their place in society, Intersex people do too. However, for Intersex people, it is far more complex as there are more than a thousand years of socio, legal, and medical erasure from Western history and social environment. Given that history, it is understandable why there is so much division and contestation over how Intersex people refer to themselves.

At present, even if ‘Intersex’ is included in the curricula, it is in a way signalling it as abnormal or unusual. Often it is referred to as in abstract, medical and mythological ways in which their bodies are presented as examples of ‘abnormality’, ‘disorders’ and ‘pathology’ without lived experience being included or talked about [20]. It is even portrayed as a mythical basis of self-reproduction which is dehumanising. Western conceptualisation has described being intersex “an animal comprising both sexes, male and female, but always unperfect” (sic) [53]. Such positioning not only dehumanises what it means to be Intersex, but creates an intentional environment where Intersex people disassociate themselves from who they are. A child hearing such notion in school would not want to so associate, thus enforcing a self-denial of their being (even if that is how they see themselves).

Another important point is to indicate that Intersex variations are not medical per se. Like all people, Intersex people may have some medical issues associated with being Intersex, but being Intersex is not medical. Natural sex variations are innate and not clearly definable as male or female, but they are not abnormal, just different. Intersex students may need different needs from other students but these have been little studied [19]. Given the medicalisation of Intersex people, many students find they have to take many days off school for medical treatment which disrupts their learning [31]. As they are not represented, it is difficult for them to explain to friends why they were away from school which leads to shame and distress. More understanding of difference and diversity throughout the curriculum would relieve much of that shame and distress.

Sexism or gender diversity is inherently excluding. The Western notion of sexism is still based on ideas of ‘Janet and John’. These have not changed. Intersex is not included within gender equality and diversity because the constructs were established to erase it. Sex and gender or sex/gender diversity must be used to ensure that Intersex people are recognised in any diversity captured in the curriculum or in the education system generally.

Another important inclusion is cultural understandings and views of the world. Inclusion of Intersex will improve understanding of diversity in other societies. Western societies were distinct in denying the existence of Intersex people. Most traditional and Indigenous society recognised Intersex people. They had a place and function in society as did all other members of society. Pre-modern traditional European societies also recognised sex diversity which was only lost as Western worldviews became established.

Another important inclusion for Intersex people in the curriculum is ensuring the realities of gender being taught in the curriculum. There are other realities that are taught in school such as the holocaust, slavery, and the impacts of derogatory terms (and concepts) on peoples and populations. ‘Gender’ is such a term for Intersex (as distinct from transgender) people. It was never intended as simply a benign descriptor. It was a means of ensuring that society remained as a binary, that biological sex could no longer be used to categorise as male or female. It has denied Intersex people the sense of who they are and a comfortable relationship with themselves and society. Even when teaching a ‘Gender and Sexuality’ course at university I noticed how benign most of the materials are glazing over the real history that Intersex people have faced. It fails to note the reason why gender was introduced into the medical and social environment and the public arena. Though ‘gender’ and ‘gender identity’ are a important understanding for transgender and some feminists, it must not be generalised for the whole of humanity. For some sex identity and the embodiment that derives from it is critical to who they are.

A vital part of inclusion and belonging is how a population is represented. People with Intersex variations report that schools particularly fail to include Intersex conversations in a welcoming way when promoting positive diversity messages in educational spaces, guidelines, policies or the curriculum [42]. For so long intersex people were either not represented or represented as monstrous, or medical abnormalities. Such representations of Intersex people continue to perpetuate much harm and stigmatisation. Despite existing since time immemorial, the existence of Intersex people still is portrayed as invisible, non-existent, or at best that there are some people who have some abnormalities (have a variation of sex characteristics), but are still a male or female gender.

Sexism has been inherent in the education system. But often when people think of sexism, they automatically consider sexism against females/women. However, sexism against Intersex people run very deep in the education system and is evident by their invisibility. Discussing the implications of sexism—medical practices, and binary body-sex-and-gender norms have on Intersex individuals students—from their perspective is empowering [42]. These discussions would allow students to learn about the complex realities of sex (and gender) identities with the self and what it means to be and function in society [19].

6. Conclusion

It is about time to discuss Intersex in an empowering way that enables the free and full development of Intersex children and upholds their dignity. The curriculum is a vital step in this process to the right to education. Not only do they have a right to access education, they also have a right to see themselves represented positively and embodied and part of the curriculum itself.

For hundreds of years, Intersex, previously referred to as hermaphrodites, have been invisible within the curriculum. There is seldom, if ever, a reference to Intersex in the curriculum in New Zealand. Until the last few years, representation was absent in curriculums in New Zealand and the vast number of countries around the world.

It is time that the ‘Janet and John’ based curriculum was ended and real diversity inclusive of intersex instigated. This is a human right that all Intersex people deserve. Society has a duty to enable all children the means to freely and fully develop as human beings. The education environment is a key site that can either be enabling or inhibiting.

I started the chapter with an observation from a personal perspective. This opened the realities of how the education system portrayed society, as male and female, and the invisibility of Intersex people. Introducing with a personal experience identified or made more personal the impact of being invisible is in the curriculum.

It is time that the curriculum in AoNZ and other around the world be inclusive of Intersex people and representative of their as beings, and not abnormalities or just ‘sex characteristics’. This continues the sexism of the system and enforces the (biological) determinism whether it is referred to under sex or gender. The points raised in this chapter form a foundation for further analytical research in the curriculum to ensure equity of representation and inclusion for Intersex people. They have a right to education and the human rights to free and full development in personality as a dignified being of which the education system plays a significant role.

Conflict of interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

Notes/thanks/other declarations

I would like to thank my colleague AC for reading this piece and giving important suggestions for improvement.

Positional statement

The author of the chapter is coming to this chapter as an Intersex person, and academic researcher specializing in human rights and has taught in the areas of gender and sexualities and social policy. The author grew up in Aotearoa New Zealand and lives on the lands of Waikato-Tainui in Aotearoa. They have ethnic (traditional) roots in Stirlingshire in Scotland. The author’s background helps to set the scene for the basis and the discussion of the chapter.