The board of regents of the Texas A&M University System voted last week to prohibit professors from teaching courses that advocate for what they term “gender ideology,” “race ideology,” or topics related to sexual orientation or gender identity without prior approval from university leadership. This decision marks a significant escalation in a contentious debate surrounding academic freedom and the inclusion of diverse perspectives in education.
The controversy began when a student in a summer course on children’s literature recorded a video accusing her professor of violating “presidential laws” by discussing “gender ideology.” The student reported the incident to the administration, prompting a swift reaction from Texas Republican politicians, who labeled the situation as a case of “TRANSGENDER INDOCTRINATION.” Following the uproar, the professor in question was dismissed, students initiated protests advocating for academic freedom, and the president of Texas A&M University resigned shortly thereafter.
The terms “gender ideology” and “transgender ideology” have gained traction in recent years, appearing frequently in government documents, policy discussions, and media reports. The White House has expressed intentions to eliminate these terms from public discourse.
Political Backdrop and Legislative Changes
The origins of the term “gender ideology” can be traced back to a global anti-gender movement that began in Europe during the 2010s and has since spread to various regions, including the United States. In 2016, North Carolina enacted a controversial law known as HB2, which restricted individuals from using public restrooms that did not correspond with the sex indicated on their birth certificates. The backlash resulted in significant economic repercussions for the state, leading to the law’s repeal the following year.
On his first day in office in 2024, former President Donald Trump signed an executive order titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.” This directive mandated the federal government to replace references to “gender” with “sex” in official documents and asserted that “sex” refers to an individual’s biological classification as male or female. The executive order described “gender ideology” as an inconsistent framework that undermines biological sex.
One affected individual, content creator Zaya Perysian, noted the complexities arising from the order. After undergoing significant medical transitions, she received a passport identifying her as male, which did not align with her lived experience. “The passport puts me at risk,” she stated, highlighting the challenges faced by transgender individuals in navigating bureaucratic systems.
Implications and Responses
The ongoing use of terms like “gender ideology” reflects broader societal tensions regarding gender identity and expression. In many conservative circles in the U.S., the phrase has become shorthand for various issues related to transgender rights. For instance, initiatives to use correct pronouns or celebrate transgender representation in media are often branded as “transgender ideology.”
Critics argue that framing transgender identities as ideologies diminishes the lived experiences of those in the transgender community. Dr. Demetre Daskalakis, an infectious disease physician and former director at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, emphasized that using such terminology creates a false narrative that positions transgender people as adherents to an ideology rather than acknowledging their identities.
Furthermore, political rhetoric surrounding gender identity can lead to tangible harm. Data from GLAAD indicates that hate crimes against transgender individuals increased by 14% from May 2024 to May 2025, underscoring the potential consequences of stigmatizing rhetoric. Studies have shown that anti-trans laws can correlate with increased suicide attempts among transgender and nonbinary youth.
The politicization of gender identity also impacts public health initiatives. Recently, the CDC was compelled to remove educational materials addressing measles care because they included references to “gender ideology.” This decision occurred amid a measles outbreak in Texas, illustrating the far-reaching consequences of conflating ideology with public health.
The discourse surrounding “gender ideology” and “transgender ideology” continues to evolve, often reflecting deeper societal divisions. As these discussions unfold, the implications for academic freedom, public health, and the rights of individuals within the transgender community remain significant and complex.
