Discussing Gender-Neutral Bathrooms At Davidson: A Step by Step Guide

Central Question: How might gender-neutral bathrooms on campus affect students’ wellbeing and comfortability?   

Introduction: After the passing and ultimate repeal of House Bill 2 by North Carolina legislature, which excluded transgender citizens from discrimination protections and prohibited them from using public restrooms aligned with their gender identity, the debate of gendered bathrooms has become polarizing topic. Arguments against HB2 argued that transgender Americans are entitled to safety and comfortability, while argument for the bill claimed that choice in restrooms breads predatory behavior and should be something to fear. However, the topic is now expanding to influence not only include trans, but non-binary people as well. A study by the Trevor Project found that one in four LGBTQ+ members of Gen Z are nonbinary, falling outside the traditional categories of “male” and “female.” This begs the question, how do the increasing number of genderqueer youth complicate the topic of public bathrooms? And specifically at Davidson, what are the potential impacts of gendered versus gender-neutral bathrooms on student wellbeing and comfortability? 

Intended Audience: Students of all gender identities should participate in this discussion, as they will all be impacted by decisions in bathroom policies. Trans and gender non-conforming students must be supported and encouraged to voice their opinion in this conversation, as they have been historically excluded from discussion of their own bodily autonomy. Thus, Queers&Allies could be a potential group to pull participants from. Those who have experienced gender-based harassment should also have a say in their comfortability in these public spaces, thus reaching out to Students Against Sexual Violence also might add a valuable perspective. Additionally, staff members from the Center for Diversity and Inclusion should also be included since they yield power to affect bathroom policies and infrastructure on campus that influences students’ everyday life and safety. Counselors from the Center for Student Health and Wellbeing who specialize in LGBTQ+ concerns would also provide a level of expertise on how this issue affects mental and physical health. Finally, the PCC E-Board must also be present in this discussion, since eating houses and frats continue to be among the only buildings without bathroom options for gender non-conforming students. 

Background: Trigger Warning: References to Self-Harm and Sexual Abuse 

To understand the relevance of gender-neutral bathrooms at Davidson, first one must be aware of the consequences of limited bathroom options for people of all gender expressions. Bathrooms can be one of the most stress inducing places on college campuses for trans and gender non-conforming students. According to the American Medical Association, when TGNC students are denied access to bathrooms that match their gender identity, they are at risk of numerous negative health outcomes, as well as verbal and physical harassment. Nearly 70% of transgender youth surveyed by the AMA reported verbal harassment and 9% reported experiences of physical assault in gender-segregated bathrooms. In a journal published by the National Institutes of Health, among the TGNB youth who experienced bathroom discrimination, 85% reported depressive mood and 60% seriously considered suicide. 

In arguments for using bathrooms aligned with ones prescribed “birth gender,” people cite the potential saftey risk for cis-gendered students. However, in reality, TGNC students are the most vulnerable in binary restrooms. According to the Harvard T.H. Chan Schools of Public Health, 36% of TGNC students with restricted bathroom access reported being sexually assaulted in the last 12 months. 

However, some TGNC students avoid public restrooms altogether. In a Human Right Campaign survey of 12000 LGBTQ teenagers, 65% of trans youth reported that they try not to use the bathroom in school. This avoidance can have serious medical consequences, including recurrent urinary tract infections, as well as the possibility of more serious health complications, including chronic kidney disease. 

In light of these findings of harassment and emotional distress caused by gendered restrooms, many college campuses have begun exploring the alternatives. At Boston University, 43 restrooms distributed evenly across campus were converted into all-gendered spaces. The University of California, one of the first colleges to write a comprehensive policy on gender-inclusive restrooms, cites 5 lessons when converting bathrooms in gender neutral areas.

  1. Converting existing single-occupancy restrooms is the most cost-effective solution
  2. Deciding how to label gender-inclusive restrooms is a more important decision than you might think (certain labels can be confusing, exclusive, or even offensive) Here is a link to bathroom signs that affirm gender diversity.
  3. Ensure gender-inclusive restrooms are distributed evenly across campus (This maximizes the number of students who can reach them)
  4. Converting gendered restrooms into gender-inclusive ones may affect compliance with laws and building codes
  5. Consider student privacy when making multi-stall restrooms gender-inclusive (Students are often most comfortable using this type of restroom if each toilet and urinal has a floor-to-ceiling stall)

Shared Language: Each individual coming into the discussion will have varying perspectives and knowledge on the topic of genderqueer identities and experiences. Thus, it is essential to provide inclusive, affirming language that can be used throughout the discussion. 

Language to Avoid:  

  • Using the word “transgender” as a noun. E.g. “She is a transgender.” Instead, use transgender as an adjective E.g. “She is transgender.”  
  • “It” as a pronoun. If unsure of someone’s pronouns, simply ask or opt for “they/them”
  • “Transvestite” and “Transsexual” (While some elder members of the LGBTQ+ community may self-identify with these words, transgender is a more commonly accepted term that is not seen as offensive)

Important Definitions according to Medical News Today: 

  • Gender: A person’s gender is how they identify internally and how they express this externally. The World Health Organization (WHO) notes that gender is a social construction that people typically describe in terms of femininity and masculinity. In Western cultures, people associate femininity with women and masculinity with men, but this social construction varies across cultures.
  • ​​Sex: A person’s sex is typically based on certain biological factors, such as their reproductive organs, genes, and hormones. Like gender, sex is not binary. A person may have the genes that people may associate with being male or female, but their reproductive organs, genitals, or both may look different.
  • Gender-neutral Bathroom: a restroom that anyone of any gender can use. Gender-neutral restrooms can be single occupant or multi stall.

Common Gender Identities as Defined by The Trevor Project: 

  • Cisgender: A cisgender person identifies with the sex that they were assigned at birth.
  • Nonbinary: A person who does not experience gender within the gender binary of “male” or “female”
  • Transgender: This is an umbrella term that encompasses all people who experience and identify with a different gender than that which their assigned sex at birth would suggest.
  • Genderqueer/Gender Non-conforming: A person who has a gender identity or expression that is not the same as society’s expectations for their assigned sex or assumed gender.
  • TGNC: transgender and gender non-conforming
  • Genderfluid: A person who has a gender identity and presentation that shifts between, or shifts outside of, society’s expectations of gender.
  • Two Spirit: an umbrella term that encompasses different sexualities and genders in Indigenous Native American communities.
  • Agender: A person who does not identify with any particular gender, or they may have no gender at all.

Conversation Agreements: Listening to students’ lived experiences surrounding bathrooms is the best way to ensure that their needs are made the number one priority. This is why there needs to be procedures in place to protect all voices and foster an environment of respect while having this challenging conversation. 

Therefore in the deliberation it is imperative that ALL participants must: 

  • be empathetic to the experiences of students regardless of how they identify.
  • be willing to challenge their assumptions and previous knowledge on bathroom preferences.   
  • engage in active listening while others are speaking 
  • understand that not everyone (not every trans/genderqueer, not every woman/man, Davidson student, etc) shares the same feelings, and experiences in regards to public restrooms. 

Deliberation Format:

Introduction: 5 min

Shared Language: 5 min

Conversation Agreements: 5 min

Background: 15 min (Participants will read to themselves and will be given extra time for individual research if needed) 

Small group discussions: 5 min (Discuss initial reactions, opinions, and questions to background information)

Large group discussions: 10 min (Discuss initial reactions, opinions, and questions)

Deliberation on Gender-Neutral Bathrooms at Davidson: 30 min

Reflections and Action Plans: 15 min

Group Discussion Questions to Consider: 

  • What are your impressions of the HB2 Bill? 
  • What were your first reactions to the background information provided? 
  • Have you thought about this topic before/have experience with gender-neutral bathrooms? 

Guiding Questions for Deliberation on Gender Neutral Bathrooms at Davidson: 

  • Do you know where the gender-neutral bathrooms are on campus? If not, pull up the map here. 
  • Who might have easy access to these bathrooms? Who might not have access? 
  • Do you think there are enough to sustainably provide for all gender queer people on campus, or people uncomfortable using gendered bathrooms? 
  • What might be the effects of the current gender-neutral bathrooms in the basement of Chambers/Belk? Consider how making these spaces separate might increase stigma/discrimination.  
  • What might be some perks of gender-neutral bathrooms for cis-gendered students and faculty? 
  • Discuss the implications of creating single-occupancy vs multiple-occupancy restrooms that are open to all genders? Think back to the background information and the University of California bathroom suggestions. What might the effects of more private floor-to ceiling stalls be at Davidson?  
  • What might be some economic costs/spatial limitations of constructing new bathrooms? How might we overcome these? 

Reflections and Action Steps:  In order to collect student and faculty opinions about the deliberation, each participant will write down their thoughts on the following questions below. If they answer yes to the last question, they will be included in an email thread that sends more information, a possible petition for more bathroom options, and dates for future meetings about this issue.

  • What is something new that you discovered in this deliberation? 
  • Did you challenge any of your previous assumptions about gender identity, student wellbeing, gender-based harassment, etc? 
  • Who else could be included in this conversation? Is there a perspective that was not considered? 
  • How could students rally support for more gender-neutral restrooms? 
  • Would you like to research and discuss this topic further?

No Product-Day Challenge

After first hearing of the activity, I was excited and immediately wanted to partake in it. I love a challenge and love to uncover my true relationship with my body. I actually do not use that many products, especially with my hair products because they don’t work for my hair type anyway. I only usually wear deodorant and sparkly eyeshadow and eyeliner. I don’t usually wear foundation because I like the way my freckles look. However, at times I use foundation to conceal acne, which I still have shame over. I wear eyeshadow because I think of my outfits and makeup as art, and I take a lot of pride in that. At the same time, I feel like I also am considered more “beautiful” when I wear makeup and feel more comfortable around others. I also feel like I have to use deodorant because I am afraid of people thinking I smell bad. 

For the 4 days I partook in the challenge, I went without all products. Overall I had a very positive experience because I felt in control and aware of how I am conditioned to gender myself. I especially felt proud about not not wearing deodorant because I was no longer inhibiting my body’s natural processes. The first day I actually did not think that I smelled bad. In fact, I actually like my natural scent; it is comforting to me. I felt more self-conscious about not wearing makeup at times because I considered myself to appear less femme and “pretty.” But, I still have fear around both, since the common assumption is that if you don’t use deodorant you aren’t as sanitary, clean, or concerned about your health. I felt constant fear that people could smell me, yet I tried to fight that instinct as much as possible. My friends did comment on how I smelled, but I didn’t let it get to me because they were just trying to protect me from other peoples’ negative perceptions of any body odor that doesn’t smell like roses. 

No one commented on how I looked. This was different for me because usually I get waves of compliments when I wear makeup, femme accessories, and femme hairstyles. Less related to products but in regards to clothing, I also found that whenever I wear a dress and contacts people always tell me I look “cute.” However, in my glasses, pants, and pulled back hair, I just look “okay” to my friends and acquaintances. I am still trying to discover the balance between adequate grooming and “self-care” and not caring about appeasing gendered expectations of beauty. While I will be interning in DC over the summer, I fear I will have to appear “polished,” feminine, and conservative in order to keep my job, especially since I will be working in a governmental office. Unfortunately in politics, a lot of attention is given toward women’s appearance and I will have to navigate upholding my personal values with caution.     

Through the challenge I realized that I still have a lot of shame around my body odor, body hair, acne, and face without makeup, but I also feel proud of my ability to analyze my own unconscious perceptions of beauty and femininity. I hope to continue on this path and create a routine that fits my needs and desires without upholding harmful gender and health stereotypes.

The Power of Voice and Intersectionality in “I Won’t Say” by Xenia Rubinos

Xenia Rubinos is an artist that does not dominate the mainstream. Her words often do not reach most Americans, and most do not hear her essential messages of the pain and joys of existing in an Afro-Latina body in America. Born to immigrant parents from Puerto Rico and Cuba, Xenia explores her place in creating music in non-white and westernized ways, through the innovation of jazz-funk and soul rhythms.

Since she speaks to being a brown girl in America and attempts to harness “black girl magic,” her music has often been diminished as solely “political,” not giving credit to her immense musical artistry and whimsical and smooth neo-soul vocals. While Xenia’s music has often been disregarded by popular American culture, her album, Black Terry Cat was ranked in the top 10 by NPR in 2016.     

In the song “I Won’t Say,” on Black Terry Cat she speaks to the experience of being silenced and constrained by the toxic expectations forced upon women of color.

Throughout the song, she repeats the phrase, “I won’t say anything at all/No, I won’t say anything at all/ Anything at all.” She speaks to her conditioning to not question and openly defy the socially accepted institutions around her. Xenia stated in 2016 with the release of the song that she has been in a “fight with words for the last ten years” and stopped singing because of it. But with the rise of the Black Lives Matter movement, she was empowered to speak her mind and bring voice to important truths that she and millions of other Americans have experienced.

Xenia quotes civil rights activist Abbey Lincoln’s essay, Who Will Revere The Black Woman? Singing, “Whose hair is compulsively fried? Whose skin is bleached? Whose nose is too big? Whose mouth is too loud? Whose butt is too broad? Whose feet are too flat? Whose face is too black?” her words exemplify the how expectations of feminine beauty, whiteness, and thinness intersect and are interconnected in American beauty standards. This aligns with the perspectives of 2nd wave Black Feminism, and to the essay Why Intersectionality Cannot Wait. Since systems of discrimination are overlapping and interdependent, this can render black women of color invisible and vulnerable to oppression greater than the sum of racism and sexism combined (Crenshaw 2015).  

However, in I Won’t Say, Xenia Rubinos also comments on the normative culture of social media and how posting pictures on these platforms reproduce the conditioning of women to uphold beauty standards. So, while she feels as if she cannot say anything and is oppressed by this pressure to stay silent, society is constantly in discourse about topics of white beauty within social media, bombarding her with how she should act and look through reproduced aesthetic expectations. Like stated in The History of Sexuality, our actions are constantly being regulated through public discourse and this discourse holds immense power (Foucault 17). She reclaims this power when singing her experiences to life. As stated by Wann in The Fat Studies Reader, power also lies in naming (Wann 7). Xenia is resisting and undo her alienation by naming her blackness, loudness, unique features, and desire to be heard.

By stating, “Look at me/Look at me/Look at you/Look at yourself looking at your selfie/Where’s your selfie?/Let go your selfie/I tried to see my ego but was blinded by my selfie,” she demonstrates the salient message that posting the “perfect” photo only upholds the stigmatization of those who are coded as socially undesirable and unworthy of a like.

In the words, “Where is the place you are?/Put it down/put it down,” Xenia urges young brown and black girls like her to let go of the pressure to conform and accept the normative standards of beauty and worth on social media. Like proclaimed in “Killing Us Softly IV: Advertising Images of Women,” women of color are forced to resemble the white ideal, straighten their hair, and lighten their skin (Kilbourne). They are set up to fail, never able to measure up to the unrealistic image of physical perfection—which is why Xenia urges people to “put it down” and see and appreciate themselves as they are.   

By repeatedly stating that she is “only sleeping,” she exemplifies how women are compelled to uphold norms through the hundreds of unconscious actions that we are programmed to do every day. For instance, “playing hide and go seek with a prince charming” is an action she does while sleeping, unquestioning the constructed heterosexual expectations that pervade every aspect of society. However, sexual orientation is not examined further within the album, and it is important to stay cognizant of how queer identities intersect with black identities. In “There Is No Hierarchy of Oppressions” for instance, Audre Lorde urges for homophobia to be seen as inseparable from racism and sexism (Lorde 1). Her newest 2021 album, Una Rosa, provides more insight on how sexuality intertwines with Xenia’s life story, inspired by Puerto Rican, diva drag queens.

When stating, “I don’t know her/she don’t know me/I don’t know me/I’m only sleeping,” Xenia speaks to girls’ ignorance over themselves and their own bodies. In light of Our Bodies Ourselves, the song demonstrates the immense occurrence of self-dissatisfaction within women because of cultural images of the female body and the little control they possess over others’ perceptions of them. But, this song is a testament to Xenia Rubinos’ journey of learning herself, letting go of expectations, and reclaiming the facets of her identity that she has been forced to conceal for so long.

A Review of “Beyond Monogamy: Polyamory and the Future of Polyqueer Sexualities”

If asked to define an ideal relationship, most people influenced by Western and European norms would describe monogamy. They would boast of a love that is “loyal,” a devoted union between two people—usually between a man and a woman. Yet, even within the LGBTQ+ community, monogamy is an expectation, and there is a heavy stigma around having a committed relationship with multiple people. Monogamy, in fact, has been so normalized that it is often seen as the only option, and any one who breaks this expectation is labeled as deviant, as inhuman, as criminal. Polyamorous Americans, unprotected under the law, can be fired from their jobs and discriminated against in housing, healthcare, and courts for simply loving too much and too many (McArdle). However, can polyamory potentially foster more loving relationships and a more loving society? And how can examining the origins of monogamy reveal all the ways in which the institution oppresses people of all gender, racial, and sexual orientations? The 2016 novel by Mimi Schippers, Beyond Monogamy: Polyamory and the Future of Polyqueer Sexualities, begins to answer these questions and sets up a theoretical framework for identifying how compulsory monogamy legitimizes the dominance of white heteromasculinity. 

Beyond Monogamy challenges the definition of monogamous couples as natural and inevitable, asserting this assumption has been used to maintain the dominance of masculinity and subordination of femininity. In fact, Schippers claims mononormativity to be the central pillar that upholds heteromasculine privilege and contemporary gender relations (Schippers 25). For instance, compulsory monogamy outcasts women who cheat or have relationships with multiple partners because they threaten expectations of feminine loyalty that uphold male possession. The same can be said for race relations, since monogamy was institutionalized alongside the “eugenic constructions of racial superiority” (8). When examining the sociohistorical construction of sexual normalcy, Schippers finds that mononormative rhetoric pathologizes black Americans to be incapable of marital monogamy and therefore inferior. The author cites the hypersexualization of black women and emasculation of black men who accept the “promiscuity” of wives as examples of the racist deployment of monogamy (41). As a consequence, black, feminist, and queer communities have historically adopted monogamy into their definitions of respectability in order to be deemed worthy in a society that already demonizes them to begin with. However, Mimi Schippers’ main argument provides some hope, that polyqueer sexualities offer an opportunity for the deconstruction of gender, racial, sexual, and class hierarchies, allowing for bonding and love across difference. For individual relationships and for the entirety of society, polyamory has the potential to revolutionize how humans relate with one another. 

As a Professor of Gender and Sexuality Studies and Department Chair of the Sociology Department at Tulane University, Mimi Schippers is an expert on the sociology of polyamory. Embracing sociological and queer theorist perspectives, Schippers focuses the book around how the construction of sexual normalcy is central to social structure and interpersonal relations. While Schippers builds on the work of Adrienne Rich, Michel Foucault, Gayle Rubin, and other feminist writers, she notes how there are few theoretical interrogations of how monogamy in particular is implicated in production of gender, racism and sexual hierarchies. She reorients away from radical feminist theory that positions men as oppressors and towards queer theories of monogamy as central to “regimes of normalcy” (6). Schippers likewise critiques Foucault for the omission of race and emphasizes how white supremacy is central to regimes of sexual normalcy that compel individuals into exclusivity. 

Curious of how non-monogamous relations are portrayed in various media representations and take shape in everyday interactions, Mimi Schippers in Beyond Monogamy analyzes popular texts and film along with her own life experiences dealing with polyamorous relationships. Thus, she combines multiple methodologies of auto-ethnography and deconstructionist methods of discursively analyzing fictional representations of polyqueer sexualities. By including explicit descriptions of her own sexual experiences and short fictional vignettes about polyqueer sexual interactions, Schippers helps readers imagine a polyqueer future and collapse the binary between “the profane pornographic and sacred academic” (28). For each narrative discursivly analyzed, she attempts to demonstrate the feminist, anti-racist, queer potential of polysexuality.  

In the first chapter, Schippers explores cultural narratives around “love triangles” and how these narratives dictate correct masculine behavior and establish the white monogamous couple as evolutionarily superior. In the classic erotic triangulation between two men and one women, the men are pitted against each other as rivals, fighting each other for the woman. Schippers uses the example of her own erotic triangle with her lover and his best friend to exemplify how having two male partners would conflict with hegemonic masculinity. The hegemonic assumption that men are naturally jealous and predisposed to control women’s sexuality, forces her lovers to have to determine a winner and a loser. This sprouts from the assumption that humans evolved to be monogamous in order to protect genetic investments and ensure offspring survival (54). However, not only are unions between one woman and multiple men found in every part of the world, they can be highly beneficial. Rather than taking ownership of women, many communities are better served by cooperation and resource sharing. For example, in North Alaskan Inuit societies, men who share spouses form strong bonds of friendship and protection that last a lifetime, due the nonexistence of jealousy and male possessiveness (55). Schippers examined this in her own life when her lover Ben and their friend Matthew were able to reconfigure their heteromasculinity and bond with each other through their love and desire for Mimi. They were able to release control over her and her sexuality through embracing the erotic triangulation. 

In the second chapter, Mimi Shippers focuses on the novel by E. Lynn Harris, Invisible Life, which through the narrative of a black man on “down low,” critiques compulsory monogamy and imagines a world in which bisexual black men have the freedom to express their sexuality. The “down low” refers to African American men who identity as heterosexual, but secretrly have sex with men as well as women (73). Media representations of men on the DL categorize them as dishonest, unfair to women, and selfish. In Invisible Life, compulsory monogamy forces the protagonist into secrecy, since as a black man in the 1990s he cannot be economically successful, and involved in his community and church while simultaneously exploring his sexuality with women and men. Schippers attributes this to the politics of black respectability, in which black activists and churches embraced the inherent morality of monogamy so that they could earn a place in society and defy racist stereotypes of black promiscuity (77). This suffocating construction of the monogamous “respectable” black man, forces men to hide their love of black women and men and desire to be intimate with both. The values of the gay community likewise constrained the protagonist, as gay men in the 90s adopted “politics of normalcy” emphasizing monogamy to resist negative images of gay men during HIV epidemic (78). Yet, Schippers displays the potential for polyqueer narratives to reconfigure racialized sexualities and challenge the politics of respectability and homonormalcy that uphold compulsory monogamy. Reimagining queer black men—not as confused, promiscuous, or dangerous, but as human desiring intimacy and respect—the analysis proposes a future in which polyamours people of all races, genders, and orientations can lead prosperous lives in society and openly experience fulfilling relationships. 

In the final chapter, Schippers deep dives into cultural narratives around erotic threesomes—their inherent mononormativity and heteromasculine assumptions—and how diversified sexual interactions offer an opportunity to work against racial and gender hierachies. Through her own encounters with hetersexual men and popular media representations, Schippers analyzes the common fantasy of sex between one man and two women—aka “every man’s dream.” In this hegemonic threesome, imaginary traditional Western gender structures are upheld as the women are solely objects of desire for the male gaze, not desiring subjects themselves, able to form deep, romantic connections with each other. The man is also able to maintain a sense of status since penile penetration is symbolic of power, while being penetrated is symbolic of passivity (154). Not only does the dominance of this fantasy depend on and perpetuate heterosexual expectations, but monogamous ones as well. Threesomes tend to only be considered acceptable when framed as momentary suspension of normalcy to “spice things up” in an otherwise monogamous partnership. The sexual preference for threesomes or sex among polyamorous triads are highly demonized, as are intimate interactions with two men and one woman—referred to as “devils threesomes.” However, the monograph asserts that threesomes with all men are actually the most common, yet do not dominate discourse because controlling images of what is “sexy” and “normal” embed into individuals’ subconscious (143). Schippers suggests that this erotic habitus, structed by race, class, and gender, can be dissolved through polyamorous touch and pleasure. For instance, if two straight men of differing races are engaged in a threesome with a woman, they are forced to reconfigure the meaning of racialized genders and their own heteromasculine subjectivity. Brought together by her desire for them and their desire for her, the men have the space to explore cross-racial, same-gender intimacy through the pleasure of orgasm.       

One shortcoming of this analysis however is that Mimi Schippers never addresses the logistics of how this potential could be realized. What will allow for such a dramatic shift in sexual norms that dominate every part of Western culture? With still unquestionable levels of fear and shame around polyamory in comtemporary life, how can polyamorous lovers be protected and truly accepted? Barely acknowledging the legal repercussions of polyamory in the United States, Schippers neglects to offer a feasible route for starting to reconfigure gender, race, sexual relations through non-monogamy. If Schipper’s theory proves true that polyamory can dismantle white patriarchal supremacy, the real question is: what can dismantle the oppressive system of compulsory monogamy?  

Though as a polyamorous and pansexual person myself, I applaud the attempt to prove the enormous potential of plural loving. Providing a framework that embraces the intersectionality of gender, class, and race, the monograph gives an accurate depiction of the sexist and racist origins of monogamy as a route to social control. Any audience member that takes monogamy for granted as common sense would benefit from reading the historical construction of the practice and perhaps reconsider how they truly want to relate to their partners—as possessions or free human beings? Perhaps the revolution to create a non-monogamous society starts with each polyqueer interaction at a time, one reader at a time reconfiguring their hegemonic assumptions until polyamory becomes the new norm.

Works Cited 

McArdle, Elaine. “Polyamory and the Law.” Harvard Law Today, 3 Aug. 2021, today.law.harvard.edu/polyamory-and-the-law/.   

Schippers, Mimi. Beyond Monogamy: Polyamory and the Future of Polyqueer Sexualities. New York University Press, 2016. 

Read Beyond Monogamy at https://web.p.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/ebook?sid=606bfe9c-f627-42a0-b272-bf2918a35ee5%40redis&ppid=pp_169&vid=0&format=EB

LET GO LEGO: LEGO Friends Failed Attempt to Deconstruct Gender Norms

I have always rooted for LEGO. As my all time favorite toy, LEGOs taught me that I can build anything and bring my dreams to life. I want the company to be a beacon of hope for a more inclusive world, where young people of all unique identities will be inspired to imagine and create. With LEGO vowing to make products “free of gender bias and harmful stereotypes” in 2021, I thought their discriminatory targeted marketing would finally come to an end, specifically with their biggest cash cow, LEGO Friends. The product debuted in 2012, branded as LEGOs “for girls.” In the attempt to peak girls’ interest, the company designed the toy sets with copious amounts of pink and story lines of caring and domestic life rather than that of adventure. Not only did LEGO profit from utilizing these preexisting gender roles, but  perpetuated expectations of how girls must play differently. The year 2022 marks the 10 year anniversary of LEGO Friends and subsequently the special release of 8 new LEGO Friends sets. When coming across a commercial for the sets, I can say I was simultaneously extremely proud and extremely disappointed. 

The commercial starts off with showing a child of color, a child in a wheelchair, and an older character painting posters for a friendship festival. The video then presents the same scene made out of LEGOs. In the background, children sing “We are different…together forever!” The children laugh together and push the friend in the wheelchair to the festival. More children of varying gender presentations join as they visit food trucks with tacos and smoothies. The advertisement ends with two live actors playing with their corresponding LEGO figurines. 

Off the bat, there is a clear inclusion of more diverse characters than the original five girls of LEGO Friends. The characters differ not only in regards to gender, including more masculine presenting figurines, but in ability, race, and age as well. In chanting, “we are different together forever,” the commercial is clearly acknowledging this inherent distinctness of the characters’ physical characteristics while also equalizing their value, as friends and as LEGO builders. Likewise, the commercial does not portray the character in a wheelchair playing with others as someone to pity. The children’s laughs and bubbly demeanor make the scene not only feel normal, but fun and appealing. The young audience might look at these joyous characters and want to experience the same, want to be their friends, regardless of any physical differences. When characters of all genders, skin tones, and abilities are seen playing with the exact same set, the constructed norms that previously dominated LEGO Friends go out the window. The audience is no longer forced to believe that girls have to play a certain way, that boys can’t enjoy pink, or that children of color or with disabilities aren’t as likely to construct a beautiful LEGO masterpiece.  

The commercial ends with the words, “Colorful Together, Better Together, Different Together.” For being exclusively displayed on kids TV channels, it is a truly empowering message that defies the biased history of the company. However, upon further examination of the commercial, my happy bubble of pride for LEGOs new progressive ways popped.    

While the live actors were not unfairly categorized or stereotyped in the advertisement, the same cannot be said for the LEGO people. All of the female presenting figurines in the LEGO set itself are wearing some shade of pink, while their male presenting counterparts are not. This pattern in the design suggests that the commercial’s strive for gender equity was purely performative, as pink is still being used to maintain a binary that perceives girls as separate. Likewise, out of the upwards of 15 new characters, all of the female characters are wearing short skirts and shorts. The majority also wear crop tops and sleeveless tops, while the males wear long sleeve shirts and longer pants. Are these kids living in different climate zones or is LEGO getting off on revealing female figurines’ bodies? The most concerning aspect of the design is that LEGO also gave female characters breasts. Keep in mind that these figurines are meant to be children, like their target audience…who can be as young as 4-years-old. Gendered distinctions like these continue to normalize the sexualization of girls and embed into children’s minds that girls have to act, dress, and play differently. 

So when LEGO claimed children should be “Different Together,” did they really mean it? Are girls on the same playing field if they are still sexualized and marked by pink? Clearly, LEGO still has a lot of work to do. As the world’s largest toy company, they have the responsibility to evaluate how their products affect the self-perceptions of the impressionable youth. I will continue to root for the goal of empowering all children to create without restriction and in a way that affirms who they truly are as people, not as categories. Hopefully LEGO will do the same.  

LEGO Friends 2022 Commercial: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ubNasSqK2KM