Within a European context marked by anti-trans – and more broadly anti-gender – mobilizations (Kuhar & Paternotte, 2017), this paper examines how “gender and sexuality issues” are being taken up within French schools. While a form of “moral panic” (Cohen, 1972) emerged as early as the 2010s following the alleged introduction of so-called “gender theory” into school textbooks (Gallot & Pasquier, 2018), recent years have witnessed a clear resurgence of these controversies. In particular, 2021 saw the publication of the French ministerial circular “For Better Consideration of Issues Related to Gender Identity in Schools”. This policy text, intended to frame the inclusion of trans pupils, has indeed raised concerns – if not outright resistance – among some education professionals (Alessandrin, 2022). More recently, the rollout in 2025 of the “Affective, Relational and Sexuality Education” program (EVARS) appears likewise to have rekindled this “fear of gender” (Butler, 2024) within schools. But what kinds of fears are encapsulated by these “gender and sexuality issues”? International scholarly literature offers valuable insights, documenting a wide range of resistances to gender and sexuality issues in school contexts (Meyer, 2010). Within the French-speaking academic field, research has likewise proliferated, highlighting the persistence of heteronormativity (Richard, 2019) and “cis-schooling” across primary and secondary education in France. At the same time, more recent studies shed light on initiatives aimed at deconstructing the cis-heteronormative model (Flores Espinola et al., 2024). Building on this body of work, the present paper seeks to investigate the introduction of “new” gender and sexuality issues within a specific socio-political context shaped by unprecedented anti-trans and anti-gender social movements. More specifically, it proposes a cross-analysis of two policy “devices,” understood here as heterogeneous assemblages combining prescriptions, materials and practices (Foucault, 1977): on the one hand, the 2021 circular on gender identity in schools, and on the other, the implementation of the EVARS program. This analytical choice is not incidental; rather, it aims to reflect more broadly on how gender and sexuality issues are being institutionally constructed within the field of education and training. To this end, the concept of “new” educational problems (Moignard, 2018) is mobilized. Such an approach helps to clarify what is actually being called into question by education professionals in France, while also contributing to scholarly debates beyond the Francophone context.

Empirically, the paper draws on findings from two research projects. The first, conducted between 2021 and 2024, examines the introduction of the so-called “trans issue” (Habib, 2021) in French schools. This study is based on 40 semi-structured, in-depth interviews (Kaufmann, 2016/1996) with education professionals affected by the 2021 circular and working – more or less directly – with transgender pupils. This qualitative component is complemented by a quantitative strand, analyzing responses from 257 participants (future education professionals) to an online questionnaire, including responses to fictional scenarios (Finch, 1987). Qualitative data were analyzed using thematic analysis (Bardin, 2007/1977), while quantitative data were examined through descriptive statistical analysis. The second study, ongoing since 2024, focuses on the implementation of the EVARS program in school settings. It relies on direct ethnographically oriented observations (Chauvin & Jounin, 2012) conducted in public schools as well as in private secondary schools operating under contract with the state. Observing education professionals and pupils in contexts of affective, relational and sexuality education proves particularly heuristic in understanding the concrete reception of educational policies, through the ways in which institutional visual materials elicit reactions, both discursive and embodied (Goffman, 1973). In addition, commented walks (Thibaud, 2001) are conducted with adults and students in order to apprehend the circulation of EVARS-related visual materials and what they render visible or invisible within the school space. The photo-elicitation method (Harper, 2002) is also employed, drawing on the collected images to prompt reactions during interviews with students. Finally, explicitation interviews (Vermersch, 1994) make it possible to further explore the ways in which educational policies are appropriated by education professionals.

Overall, this paper presents findings that shed light – through a renewed analytical lens – on what troubles education professionals when gender and sexuality issues are introduced into school contexts. First, the results suggest that adult resistances to the inclusion of transgender pupils reveal the circulation of pre-existing beliefs, notably shaped by media discourses (Espineira, 2015). In line with earlier pioneering studies, the findings contribute to understanding how transgender identities are framed as a “fashion trend”, an “adolescent phase”, or the product of an “American ideology” (Alessandrin, 2022). Moreover, the results highlight tensions – and, in some cases, anti-trans mobilizations – within French schools around highly specific issues such as name and pronoun changes, dress codes, and access to toilets. In addition, certain school subjects appear to lie at the heart of the fears and controversies surrounding this “new” educational problem : most notably physical education (PE). In France, concerns crystallize around locker rooms, grouping practices, and the assessment of transgender pupils’ motor performance, echoing findings from international research (Sykes, 2011). Examining the implementation of the EVARS program likewise proves fruitful for analyzing tensions related to gender and sexuality education, particularly resistances to the deconstruction – or reconfiguration – of the gender regime (Connell, 1987). These tensions extend into the situated and politicized appropriations of EVARS visual materials by education professionals (Albenga & Jacquemart, 2015). The initial findings highlight a selective use of visual materials, whose reception by students is contrasted: some images contribute to the normalization of bodies and sexualities (Foucault, 1976), while others are mobilized as levers for discussion around choice, understood as socially constructed orientations (Ahmed, 2006). These differentiated uses, dependent both on adults’ values and on young people’s reactions, reveal the persistence of resistance to the transformation of gender and sexuality norms (Richard, 2021).

Ahmed, S. (2006). Queer phenomenology: Orientations, Objects, Others. Duke University Press. Alessandrin, A. (2022). La prise en compte des élèves trans à l’école en France. La nouvelle revue - Éducation et société inclusives, 93(1), 229 244. Bardin, L. (2007/1977). L’analyse de contenu. PUF. Butler, J. (2024). Who’s Afraid of Gender? Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Chauvin, S. et Jounin, N. (2012). 7 – L’observation directe. In S. Paugam L'enquête sociologique (p. 143-165). Presses Universitaires de France. Cohen, S. (1972) Folk Devils and Moral Panics: The Creation of the Mods and Rockers. MacGibbon and Kee. Connell, R. W. (1987). Gender and power: Society, the person and sexual politics. Stanford University Press. Espineira, K. (2015). Médiacultures. La transidentité en télévision : une recherche menée sur un corpus à l’INA (1946-2010). L’Harmattan. Finch, J. (1987). The Vignette Technique in Survey Research. Sociology, 21(1), 105 114. Flores Espinola, A., Gallot, F., Lavoipierre, C., Ménard, M. (2024). Genre et sexualités dans les établissements scolaires : une révolution féministe en cours ? Genre Éducation Formation, 8. Foucault, M. (1976). Histoire de la sexualité, tome 1 : La volonté de savoir. Gallimard. Foucault, M. (1977). Le jeu de Michel Foucault. Ornicar. Bulletin périodique du champ freudien, 10, 62-93. Gallot, F., & Pasquier, G. (2018). L’école à l’épreuve de la « théorie du genre » : Les effets d’une polémique. Introduction. Cahiers du Genre, 2(65), 5 16. Goffman, E. (1973). La mise en scène de la vie quotidienne, tome 1 : La présentation de soi. Minuit. Habib, C. (2021). La question trans. Gallimard. Harper, D. (2002). Talking about pictures: A case for photo elicitation. Visual Studies, 17(1), 13–26. Jacquemart, A. et Albenga, V. (2015). Pour une approche microsociologique des idées politiques Les appropriations ordinaires des idées féministes. Politix, 109(1), 7-20. Kaufmann, J.-C. (2016/1996). L’entretien compréhensif. Armand Colin. Kuhar, R., & Paternotte, D. (2018). Campagnes anti-genre en Europe. Des mobilisations contre l’égalité. PUL. Meyer, E-J. (2010). Gender and Sexual Diversity in Schools. Springer Dordrecht. Moignard, B. (2018). Les « nouvelles » problématiques éducatives : Construction de l’objet. Revue française de pédagogie, 202, 65 75. Richard, G. (2021). Hétéro, l’école. Plaidoyer pour une éducation antioppressive à la sexualité. Remue-ménage. Sykes, H. J. (2011). Queer bodies: Sexualities, genders, & fatness in physical education. Peter Lang. Thibaud, J.-P. (2001). La méthode des parcours commentés. In J.-P. Thibaud & M. Grosjean (dir.), L’espace urbain en méthodes (pp. 79–99). Parenthèses. Vermersch, P. (1994). L’entretien d’explicitation. ESF.