Introduction
Sexual violence is underpinned by embedded inequalities and power dynamics (Heise,
1998) and is typically committed by male intimate partners or others known to the victim-survivor (Rogers,
2019; Wooten,
2016). In Australia, more than 80% of reported sexual violence victim-survivors are women (Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS),
2020a), and over 90% of perpetrators are men (ABS,
2020b; Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW),
2020). Among those at highest risk of sexual victimisation are 18–24-year olds, a typical age for university and college students (AIHW,
2018; Sinozich & Langton,
2014). US research estimates between 19 and 27% of female students have or will experience an attempted or completed sexual assault while at university (Fisher et al.,
2000; Joseph et al.,
2013; Sinozich & Langton,
2014). In 2016, over 50% of Australian university students experienced at least one incident of sexual harassment, and 7% experienced sexual assault (Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC),
2017, p. 3). Female students were more than three times as likely to experience sexual assault and almost twice as likely to experience sexual harassment than male students (AHRC,
2017, p. 4). These statistics point to a notable risk of sexual violence for university students and reflect embedded gender-based patterns of victimisation.
Much of the existing literature on sexual violence aligns with the experiences of heterosexual, cisgender women (McCauley et al.,
2019). As Lockwood Harris and Hanchey (
2014) note, “sexual victimisation is feminised via a heteronormative frame…” (p. 336). A rigid binary view of the gendered nature of sexual violence risks undermining the experiences of victim-survivors who do not fit within ‘traditional’ gender models or stereotypical expectations, for example individuals who do not identify as male/female or woman/man, non-heterosexuals and/or male victim-survivors (Bates et al.,
2019). A number of studies have found that sexual violence particularly affects sexuality and gender diverse people, including lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, non-binary and queer-identifying individuals (Coulter et al.,
2017; Griner et al.,
2020; Martin et al.,
2011). Sexual and gender diversity “are constructed against the backdrop of heteronormativity” (Shannon & Smith,
2017, p. 249). Both heterosexuality and gender conformity are the implicit ‘norm’ and are identified as being in explicit disparity to ‘diverse forms’ of identities, practices and/or behaviours (Shannon & Smith,
2017). Framing sexual violence as a heteronormative experience, in which men are perpetrators and women are victims, limits recognition and understanding of experiences of sexuality and gender diverse persons (Butler,
1990; Edwards et al.,
2015; Griner et al.,
2020; Lockwood Harris & Hanchey,
2014; Wooten,
2016).
This paper adds to the body of knowledge by reporting findings from a preliminary study which examined sexual violence policies from a sample of Australian universities. Key themes are first set out with respect to gendered attitudes and expectations of sexual violence. Research examining university responses to sexual violence is explored, along with the importance of language within sexual violence policies in higher education contexts. The study deployed a summative approach to content analysis, to examine the extent to which assumptive concepts related to gender, sexuality and inclusivity were present within a sample of Australian university sexual violence policies. Overall, the results suggest that the sexual violence policies examined typically reject heteronormative narratives of sexual violence and use gender-neutral language that is inclusive of all genders and sexualities. This provides a foundation for future research to examine the actual experiences of sexuality and gender diverse victim-survivors when navigating university sexual violence policies.
A Note About Language: Sex, Gender, Sexuality and Inclusivity1
There is debate regarding when to use the terms ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ and how to conceptualise and define them (Muehlenhard & Peterson,
2011). The term sex may be defined as the biological features of being female or male, whereas gender may be defined as a personal sense of being a man or woman, as influenced by a range of social and cultural factors (Griner et al.,
2020; Hood-Williams,
1996; Muehlenhard & Peterson,
2011; Risman,
2004; West & Zimmerman,
1987). Hood-Williams (
1996) positions gender as relating to cultural rather than biological differences: whether someone is masculine or feminine differs culturally across time and place. Muehlenhard and Peterson (
2011) found that the terms ‘female’ and ‘male’ were often used to refer to ‘sex’, which was associated with biological factors: chromosomes, hormones, reproductive systems, anatomy, etc.; the terms ‘women’ and ‘men’ often referred to gender, which was associated with social and/or cultural factors; gender was commonly defined in terms of an individual’s feminine or masculine traits, behaviours or interests; and ‘gender’ and ‘sex’ were often used interchangeably.
Risman (
2004) considers gender to be a social structure, “embedded at the individual, interactional, and institutional dimensions of…society” (p. 446). At the individual level, the gender structure shapes interactional expectations which are at the centre of ‘doing gender’ (Risman,
2009). The gender structure also has implications at the institutional level, with respect to the organisation and policing of social groups (Risman,
2009).
Some suggest that gender is not something individuals
have, but it is something they
do (Messerschmidt,
2009; West & Zimmerman,
1987). Gender and gender differences are reproduced, achieved and/or sustained through every day, social interactions. ‘Doing gender’ is comprised of gender performance, where individuals perform a socially expected gender role (Muehlenhard & Peterson,
2011), and gender accountability, where individuals are accountable to the self, others and society (West & Zimmerman,
1987).
Just as people can
do gender through social interaction, gender can also be
undone through social interactions (Deutsch,
2007; Nordmarken,
2019; Risman,
2004). Gender may be undone during gender-neutral interactions; when people do not follow traditional sex or gender scripts; when individuals ignore or make irrelevant, gender as a concept; and when people alter their expectations of their own and other’s gender performance so as to change oppressive behaviours (Deutsch,
2007; Nordmarken,
2019). Gender is undone whenever the “essentialism of binary distinctions between people based on sex category is challenged” (Risman,
2009, p. 83).
‘Doing gender’ requires “a structural context that enables challenges to the gender binary” (Connell,
2010, p. 52). In challenging the gender binary, Connell (
2010) explains that while cisgender people align more seamlessly with their birth sex, sex category and expected gender norms, the sex category and gender of transgender people do not align as consistently with their sex. This “disruption opens up an opportunity to undo or redo gender” (Connell,
2010, p. 32). The shifting of gender norms signals the ‘redoing’ of gender, where gender still remains but in less restrictive forms and/or less oppressive ways (Nordmarken,
2019; West & Zimmerman,
1987).
For the purpose of this paper, ‘sex’ is used in relation to the biological features of being female, male or intersex. ‘Gender’ refers to the cultural and social factors which can influence individual self-conceptualisation and expression of identity. It is acknowledged that the boundary between the social and biological is not completely clear, and that gender is not exclusively defined or manifested by the strict binary of masculine or feminine norms (Lafferty et al.,
2021; Marinucci,
2010). The studies referred to in this paper may have defined the terms sex and gender differently or used them interchangeably, and language shifts within the paper occur only to keep the fidelity of the original studies.
Sex, gender and sexuality are interrelated experiences (Hughes,
2019). Sexuality encompasses sexual identity, which refers to labels, communities, politics and positioning; sexual orientation, referring to interests, attractions and fantasies; and sexual status, which refers to behaviours and activities (van Anders,
2015). For the current study, sexuality refers to sexual orientation (who a person is attracted to), sexual identity (what a person self-identifies as i.e. heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, etc.) as well as a person’s sexual behaviours, fantasies, attitudes and values.
Inclusivity refers to the provision of equal access to opportunities and resources for all persons: not excluding people on the grounds of gender, race, class, sexuality, dis/ability and so on. In Ellis’ (
2009) study examining diversity and inclusivity at universities in the UK, inclusiveness referred to how issues relevant to sexuality and gender diverse persons were adequately represented at a university. For the current study, inclusivity refers to the visibility of issues and concerns relevant to sexuality and gender diverse individuals in policy, through the acknowledgment of sexual violence not only occurring between men and women in heterosexual encounters, recognising sexuality and gender diverse persons’ vulnerability to sexual violence and provision of specific resources for sexuality and gender diverse people.
Results
The research findings consider the policies with respect to their inclusivity from a gender and sexuality perspective. The overall results are discussed in the final section of the paper.
Table
2 summarises the results for the presence of gender-neutral terms within the 17 university policies.
Table 2
Gender-neutral terms present in university policies
‘Anyone’ | DEAKIN, FED, LT, RMIT, SWIN, VIC | 60 |
‘Individual’ | ACU, DEAKIN, DIVINITY, FED, LT, MELB, MON, SWIN, VIC | 90 |
‘Person | ACU, DEAKIN, DIVINITY, FED, LT, MELB, MON, RMIT, SWIN, VIC | 100 |
‘Someone | DEAKIN, DIVINITY, FED, LT, MELB, MON, RMIT, SWIN, VIC | 90 |
‘Their’ | ACU, DEAKIN, DIVINITY, FED, LT, MELB, MON, RMIT, SWIN, VIC | 100 |
‘Them’ | ACU, DEAKIN, DIVINITY, FED, LT, MELB, MON, RMIT, SWIN, VIC | 100 |
‘They’ | ACU, DEAKIN, DIVINITY, FED, LT, MELB, MON, RMIT, SWIN, VIC | 100 |
Gender-neutral terms are used consistently by each university. When describing students, staff and visitors, all policies used the terms ‘they’, ‘them’, ‘their’ or ‘person’. The terms ‘individual’ and ‘someone’ were also used by all but Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT) and Australian Catholic University (ACU). All gender-neutral terms coded were used in the policies to describe ‘students’ and ‘teachers’ in a non-gender-specific way.
Policies consistently used ‘person’, ‘someone’ or ‘anyone’ when defining specific terms, such as ‘consent’, ‘sexual harassment’, ‘sexual assault’, ‘respondent’, ‘complainant’ and ‘victimisation’. These descriptors are gender-neutral and inclusive. Importantly, policies which define the complainant (or discloser) and respondent (or complaint receiver) do not assign a specific gender to such individuals. Nine of the universities (90%) used gender-neutral terms when outlining support services available following an incident of sexual violence, including ‘person’, ‘student/s’, ‘staff’, ‘staff member’, ‘resident’, ‘visitor’ and ‘associate/s’. This implies that individuals of any gender or individuals who reject gender categories entirely can be victim-survivors of sexual violence and can, therefore, access support services. Swinburne University (SWIN) did not include any sexual violence support services within their policy.
Table
3 summarises the results for the presence of gender-specific terms within the 17 university policies.
Table 3
Gender-specific terms present in university policies
‘Female’ | ACU, DEAKIN, FED | 30 |
‘He’ | MON | 10 |
‘Male’ | ACU, FED | 20 |
‘Men’ | VIC | 10 |
‘She’ | MON | 10 |
‘Women | FED, MON, VIC | 30 |
Five (50%) of the universities used one or more gender-specific term in their sexual violence policies. Gender-specific language was used when defining specific terms, such as ‘sexual harassment’ and ‘gender identity’, and/or when outlining available support services. Gender-specific language was not used by these universities to explicitly exclude other gender identities, outside of the male/female construct, but its use could exclude by implication.
ACU used the terms ‘males’ and ‘females’ when defining ‘sexual harassment’. Their Staff Sexual Misconduct Policy states that sexual harassment can take many forms, including being “…perpetrated by males and females against people of the same or opposite sex” (p. 4). This includes both males and females as potential victim-survivors and perpetrators of sexual violence and is inclusive of individuals in non-heterosexual relationships. However, it does not specifically consider people of other gender identities, or individuals who reject gender categories.
Deakin University (DEAKIN) used the term ‘female’ when defining ‘sexual touching’. Their Sexual Harm Prevention and Response Policy states “…touching may be sexual due to the area of the body that is touched or used in the touching, including (but not limited to) the genital or anal region, the buttocks or, in the case of a female or a person who identifies as a female, the breasts…” (p. 5). The gendered term ‘female’ is present but does not exclude other gender identities.
The terms ‘female’ and ‘male’ are used by Federation University (FED) when defining ‘sex’, ‘gender identity’ and ‘intersex status’. They also use inclusive language such as “…something other, or in between” male and female, “…with or without regard to sex designated at birth…” and “…neither wholly female nor wholly male, or a combination of female and male” (Equal Opportunity and Valuing Diversity Policy, p. 2). The term ‘women’ is used by FED to describe populations in the university community that may face diminished participation and achievement due to gender inequality (Equal Opportunity and Valuing Diversity Policy, p. 7).
Victoria University (VIC) used the terms ‘women’ and ‘men’ in their Sexual Harassment Response Policy, stating that “…the laws relating to sexual harassment apply equally to women and men” (p. 3). While this indicates both men and women can be victim-survivors of sexual harassment, this aspect of the policy ignores individuals of other gender identities and those who reject gender categories. This is contradicted by the university’s acknowledgement of “…the experiences, needs and perspectives of distinct populations, including…those who identify as transgender or gender diverse, those who identify as LGBTQ + …” (Sexual Harassment Response Policy, p. 3).
The term ‘women’ is used by Monash University (MON), when outlining the sexual misconduct support and advice services available for students (Sexual Misconduct Response Procedure, p. 2). This may limit the types of services available within the policy to women only. Similarly, VIC used the terms ‘men’ and ‘women’ when outlining support services for sexual violence victim-survivors: ‘Men’s Referral Service’ and ‘Women’s Information & Referral Exchange’. However, VIC also includes ‘Q Life’, a sexual violence support service for sexuality and gender diverse persons.
Only MON used the terms ‘she’ and ‘he’ when defining consent. Their Sexual Misconduct Response Procedure states “…a person does not freely agree to an act in circumstances including…the person submits because she or he is unlawfully detained…” (p. 6). This implies only individuals who identify as female or male can be unlawfully detained as a (potential) victim-survivor of sexual violence and, therefore, may not be perceived as inclusive of individuals who do not use ‘she/her’ or ‘he/him’ pronouns, who do not identify as female or male, or who reject gender categories entirely.
The policies of seven (70%) universities recognise the need to be specifically inclusive of underrepresented, marginalised and/or vulnerable populations, such as sexuality and gender diverse persons. Most commonly, policies included a clear statement that sexual violence can affect anyone regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, age, race or dis/ability. ACU, LT and VIC are the three universities that do not include such a statement. When explaining who can experience sexual violence, DEAKIN specifically references “higher risk cohorts” which include sexuality and gender diverse students, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and persons with a disability. This approach recognises and specifically includes populations within the university community who may be more vulnerable to sexual violence.
When defining ‘sex’, ‘gender identity’, ‘intersex status’ and ‘sexual orientation’, FED is inclusive of people who do and do not identify as female or male, and of heterosexuals and non-heterosexuals. Similarly, MON’s policy acknowledges “…sexual misconduct can involve behaviour by, or toward, a person of any sex, gender…and sexuality…” (Sexual Misconduct Response Procedure, p. 1). RMIT states that “…sexual harassment can impact anyone regardless of their sex, gender identity or sexual orientation” (Sexual Harassment Policy, p. 1). University of Melbourne (MELB) also states “…sexual misconduct can involve behaviour by a person of any sex, sexual orientation and gender identity” (p. 5). SWIN “…commits to eliminate…any source of direct or indirect discrimination on the basis of gender…(and) sexual orientation…” (People, Culture and Integrity Policy, p. 3). DIVINITY states individuals cannot be discriminated against based on gender identity, gender, sexual orientation and/or sex. MELB’s policy expresses that “…all people have the right to live, work, study and socialise in an environment that is free from sexual misconduct regardless of their sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, immigration status and citizenship status” (Sexual Misconduct Policy and Procedure, p. 4).
Discussion
This study found that the majority of the Australian university sexual violence policies examined acknowledge the potential breadth of sexual violence and do not presume that it occurs only within heterosexual relationships or that it is something only
men do to
women. This is a significant finding: it differs from previous, primarily US-focused, research which has repeatedly reported that sexual violence policies are typically heteronormatively framed (DeLong et al.,
2018; Worthen & Wallace,
2017) and ignore the sexual victimisation of men (Chapleau et al.,
2008; Reitz-Krueger et al.,
2017; Turchik,
2012) and of sexuality and gender diverse persons (Enke,
2016). The policies implemented by these Australian universities have largely moved away from the traditional narrative of sexual violence, which can ignore non-heterosexual incidents, male victimisation and the experiences of sexuality and gender diverse and gender-nonconforming individuals. These findings align with recommendations made by Garvey et al. (
2017) that university sexual violence policies should state clearly that they “…serve any person regardless of gender identity and sexual orientation, and regardless of the gender identity and sexual orientation of the perpetrator” (p. 165).
Inclusion and exclusion are actively perpetuated through language choices (Šorli,
2020. The gender neutrality and level of inclusivity found across this sample of Australian university sexual violence policies may suggest a conscious effort to avoid using language and words which may be interpreted as discriminatory and exclusionary or imply that sexual violence is experienced only by women at the hands of men (Bates et al.,
2019; Butler,
1990; Enke,
2016; McCauley et al.,
2019; Rich,
1980; Wooten,
2016). However, this was not definitively proven by the findings of the current study due to the methods deployed and, therefore, more research is needed to examine this further.
Through moving away from the common heteronormative narrative of sexual violence, the use of gender-neutral and inclusive language within these Australian universities’ sexual violence policies may help victim-survivors of all genders and sexualities to recognise their unwanted sexual experiences as a form of sexual violence. This may also indicate Australian universities’ commitment to encouraging reporting of sexual violence; a common barrier to reporting pertains to victim-survivors not recognising their experiences as a form of sexual violence (Fisher et al.,
2000; Wilson & Miller,
2016). Sexuality and gender diverse victim-survivors, for example, are less likely to report sexual violence due to a lack of acknowledgment of their vulnerability and fears of discrimination (Calton et al.,
2016). By acknowledging sexuality and gender diverse persons and using gender-neutral and inclusive language, the sexual violence policies examined in this study may help sexuality and gender diverse individuals overcome these barriers and increase sexual violence incident reporting.
As well as promoting inclusivity and acknowledging the complex reality of sexual violence, these findings are important in the context of the potential wider effects of such policies. Kettrey and Marx (
2019) note that young adults may be more likely to reject traditional gendered explanations of sexual violence and respond more positively to gender-neutral explanations that employ inclusive language and acknowledge a wider range of victim-survivors and perpetrators. Gender-neutral terms, such as ‘person’ or ‘people’ can be used to refer to all people equally and literally, which is inclusive of transgender, sexuality and gender diverse, non-binary and gender-nonconforming persons, as well as men and women (Marinucci,
2010). As the more outdated sexual violence stereotypes were not evident within the Australian policies examined, sexuality and gender diverse persons and male victim-survivors may be better able to perceive and position themselves as victim-survivors and seek out and access essential support services.
This study found no instances where the terms ‘victim’ and ‘perpetrator’ are accompanied by a gender-specific descriptor. There was no embedded presumption that women are victim-survivors and men are perpetrators of sexual violence. Most policies examined acknowledged that any ‘person’ can be a potential victim-survivor or perpetrator of sexual violence, and that sexual violence can occur within any relationship, interaction or encounter. This finding aligns to some degree with Schulze and Budd (
2020), who found that 67% of 118 US universities presented a definition of sexual violence within a policy, inclusive of acts applicable to
all individuals and not just to those who identify as a cisgender woman or man. However, the current study differs from other notable findings. Iverson’s (
2015, p. 23) “discourse of risk” constructs women as physically vulnerable victims, and Bedera and Nordmeyer (
2015) note that sexual violence prevention information typically advises women of their vulnerability. As a range of research has found that sexuality or gender diverse college students are at a similar or greater risk of sexual victimisation than their heterosexual cisgender counterparts (Coulter et al.,
2017; Edwards et al.,
2015; Griner et al.,
2020; McCauley et al.,
2020), it is essential for university sexual violence policies to acknowledge the needs and realities of sexuality and gender diverse students.
A notable exception to the general level of inclusivity is the use of gender-specific terms by ACU and MON when defining ‘sexual harassment’ and ‘consent’, respectively. The embedded implication is that only individuals identifying as female or male can be either victim-survivors or perpetrators of sexual violence. This potentially undermines the overall level of inclusivity as there is no acknowledgment of non-binary or gender-nonconforming individuals. Iverson (
2015) suggests universities in the USA use ‘she/he’ to refer to the subjects in sexual violence policies, as an effort to be “ungendered” or “neutrally gendered”, and “reject heteronormative descriptions of sexuality” (p. 27). However, this may be perceived as not inclusive of individuals who do not use ‘she/her’ or ‘he/him’ pronouns, nor identify as female or male. It is possible that ACU is influenced by its religious affiliation in its use of gender-specific terms within its sexual violence policy. US students who report having religious beliefs are less supportive of sexuality and gender diverse persons (Enke,
2016; Finlay & Walther,
2003; Woodford et al.,
2012). This may suggest that religiously affiliated universities are less supportive of sexuality and gender diverse students (Hughes,
2019). However, little research exists in relation to the environment within Catholic universities for sexuality and gender diverse students (Hughes,
2019), particularly regarding experiences of sexual violence. Given this and the anomalous finding in the current study, the relationship between university religious affiliation and sexuality and gender diverse persons’ experiences of sexual violence merits specific examination in future research.
A further anomalous finding came from VIC’s acknowledgement of “…the experiences, needs and perspectives of distinct populations, including…those who identify as transgender or gender diverse, those who identify as LGBTQ + …”, followed by the use of the terms ‘women’ and ‘men’ to explain to whom sexual harassment laws apply. The wording is contradictory as it initially implies all individuals are included in sexual violence discourse, but then describes sexual harassment as only occurring between women and men. Such an apparent lack of care in the way that polices are worded may inhibit an individual’s ability to perceive themselves as a victim-survivor of sexual violence. VIC may be trying to adhere to legal provisions by including the explanation of sexual harassment laws. These laws can be gendered and non-inclusive of sexuality and gender diverse persons, and people who reject gender categories entirely. For example, in Victorian legislation, Sect. 92 of the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Vic) states that “…a person sexually harasses another person if he or she….”. As this is Victorian law, VIC may be conflicted by wanting to produce a legally accurate sexual violence policy. VIC may benefit from citing federal legislation within its sexual violence policy: the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) (s.28A(1)) uses ‘person’ rather than ‘he’ or ‘she’ with respect to sexual harassment.
There are arguments for and against the use of gender-neutral language in relation to sexual violence, but problems of gender inequality, pervasive heteronormativity and the lack of inclusion of sexuality and gender diverse persons cannot be solved by changes to language alone (Šorli,
2020). It is possible to acknowledge and stress the typically gendered nature of sexual violence while still using gender-neutral language that is more inclusive for all victim-survivors, specifically sexuality and gender diverse people. Continuing to interrogate and critique assumptive concepts in language remains important as words “…can be used both to empower and create change, and to form stereotypes and breed mistrust” (King,
2016, p. 17). It is also acknowledged that using gender-neutral language within sexual violence policy may lead people to feel as though they are excluded if their identities have not been explicitly named (Brooks Dollar,
2017; Shannon & Smith,
2017). An additional consideration concerns the risk of forced ‘outing’ of sexuality and gender diverse victim-survivors of sexual violence. Although the sexual violence policies examined in this study may be inclusive, they cannot account for the potential uncertainty generated by policies and practices for sexuality and gender diverse persons who are not ‘out’. Further, resolution processes and strategies deployed by universities when handling sexual violence reports may prevent ‘closeted’ sexuality and gender diverse persons from engaging in formal justice processes. This point is beyond the scope of the paper but is an important area for future research to explore.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.