When the War on "Woke" Hits Real People
Part 1 of a series on the Gender Unicorn, the Genderbread Person, and the question of who gets to decide about visibility
A purple unicorn, a gingerbread figure, and a great deal of political anger. Anyone who has followed the attacks on the "Gender Unicorn" and the "Genderbread Person" over the years will recognize a recurring pattern. Terms like gender identity, gender expression, and attraction get tied to an alleged threat to children. An explanation of human diversity is turned into an enemy image. [1, 2]
What the Diagrams Actually Show
The Gender Unicorn was published in 2015 by Trans Student Educational Resources (TSER). It distinguishes five dimensions: gender identity, gender expression, sex assigned at birth, physical or sexual attraction, and romantic or emotional attraction. Each dimension is meant as a sliding scale, not a checkbox. The older Genderbread Person follows the same basic idea, and TSER deliberately reworked it when creating the unicorn. [3]
Both graphics are simplified tools for telling different aspects of a person apart. Who I am, how I present myself, and who I am attracted to are separate questions. The diagrams make that distinction visible. And that is exactly what sparks much of the outrage.
One Buzzword, Many Opponents
The label "woke" makes it possible to bundle very different concerns into a single political enemy. In the U.S. executive order against alleged indoctrination in schools, questions of racism and gender sit right next to each other. [4] To me, this shows how a fight against a buzzword ends up hitting people and the realities of their lives.
As a trans woman, I am directly affected by this dispute. When queer visibility is described as a dangerous ideology, my right to simply belong is at stake as well. I want to live in a society where people are allowed to learn about us without that information itself being treated as an attack.
When Acceptance Itself Becomes Suspect
How fundamental this conflict is became clear as early as August 2016, when evangelical preacher Franklin Graham went after Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools in North Carolina in a Facebook post. The trigger was a new policy that, among other things, addressed access to restrooms and locker rooms and provided that school staff would not inform parents of a student's gender identity without that student's consent. [1]
Graham accused the district of brainwashing children into accepting homosexuality and being transgender as okay. The innocent-looking unicorn, he claimed, was being used to capture children's imagination. He compared the approach to communist regimes in Eastern Europe and Russia, which he said had cut parents out of moral decisions, and urged people to attend the school board meeting on August 9. [1] In this line of argument, the problem is not some particular teaching method. What is already suspect is the goal of children accepting other people.
Accusations like this become especially powerful once children enter the picture. Anyone who claims children are in danger creates moral pressure to act. Parents are supposed to worry, schools are supposed to justify themselves, and teachers come under suspicion. The question of what a piece of material actually explains easily disappears behind the alleged danger.
How Unrelated Research Gets Turned Into Evidence
A piece by Keri D. Ingraham, director of the Discovery Institute's education center, cited both graphics in March 2022 as examples of indoctrination. The article first appeared in National Review. Ingraham claims the diagrams are commonly used even in the lower elementary grades but offers no evidence for that claim. She describes the figures as endearing guides that lead young children through self-selecting their gender identity, and links this to confusion, mental health harm, and medical interventions. [2]
Her choice of sources is particularly revealing. As evidence of possible harm, the text links to a "recent study" that turns out to be a master's thesis from 2017. [2] That thesis examines how the timing of first exposure to pornography relates to later mental health, life satisfaction, and sexual behavior. [5] Neither the Gender Unicorn nor the Genderbread Person, nor any instruction using these materials, is the subject of that research. Its findings therefore demonstrate no harm whatsoever caused by the diagrams. Yet in the campaign text, they appear right next to the warnings about queer education.
This is how connections emerge that the facts do not support. An explanation of attraction is moved into the vicinity of pornography. A conversation about gender is framed as the first step toward medical treatment. Even the friendly design is read as a sign of manipulation: the unicorn supposedly wins children over precisely because it looks harmless. Graham and the Discovery Institute both draw on exactly this reading. [1, 2]
Parental Rights as the Frame
Parental rights also play a central role. In 2019, the Heritage Foundation published a report by Andrea Jones and Emilie Kao opposing the Equality Act, the proposed expansion of U.S. anti-discrimination law to cover sexual orientation and gender identity. The report cites the Gender Unicorn, along with variants such as the Genderbread Person, as an example of classroom material in which students are asked to mark their own position on the scales. [6]
According to this argument, parents, not schools or the government, should decide when their children learn about gender and sexuality, and according to which moral or religious values. In the report, inclusive teaching materials appear as ideological influence. [6]
I believe parental involvement matters. At the same time, children are people in their own right. They encounter different families, classmates, and ways of life. Some of them recognize themselves in this information. For me, good education includes giving them understandable words for that. My convictions as a parent cannot define the entire reality a child is allowed to get to know.
From Outrage to Infrastructure
The outrage does not stop at individual comments. Since February 2023, the organization Defending Education has listed a resource page of the Berkley School District in Michigan as an indoctrination incident. The reason: among the LGBTQ+ resources on a page about emotional support and wellness, there is a link to the Genderbread Person. Even the distinction between gender identity, gender expression, and anatomical sex is treated as a problem. [7]
Entries like this appear on a website that offers an interactive map of alleged indoctrination cases and a form for reporting further incidents. [7] This creates an infrastructure that can turn local materials into national targets. It does not explain every single comment. But it shows how a school resource becomes a reason for organized mobilization.
When Governments Adopt the Language
By now, this language has made its way into government documents. The executive order "Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling" of January 29, 2025, calls for a strategy against the promotion of so-called "gender ideology" and "discriminatory equity ideology" in schools. It ties the issue to indoctrination, parental authority, and an alleged threat to children. [4] A political battle term thus gains institutional weight.
What This Means for Educators
The case of Melissa McCoul at Texas A&M University shows what the consequences can be. The English lecturer was teaching a course on children's literature when a student filmed a classroom discussion about gender identity in the summer of 2025. After the video circulated and Republican politicians demanded her dismissal, she lost her job in September 2025. [8, 9]
In February 2026, McCoul filed suit in federal court in Houston. She argues that the university violated her free speech and due process rights in order to satisfy political pressure, including a demand from Governor Greg Abbott. According to the lawsuit, two independent university bodies had found that her due process rights were violated. [8] These are claims made in the lawsuit, not findings of a court. Regardless of the outcome, the Texas A&M System introduced new rules after her firing that allow discussion of race, gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity in most courses only with approval from university leadership. [9]
When Books Disappear
Access to books is being restricted as well. For the 2025-26 U.S. school year, PEN America documents a total of 11,982 book bans in public schools, more than in any year since it began tracking in 2021. The bans affected 7,370 unique titles in 114 school districts, both also record highs. More than 4,500 titles appeared in the index for the first time. [10] Texas alone recorded more than 8,100 cases after the book ban law SB 13 took effect, and Florida more than 3,200. [11] According to PEN America, bans in 72 percent of the districts it tracked can be attributed to state legislation. PEN also points out that the figures are an undercount, because many bans go unreported and quieter forms of censorship, such as books that are simply never purchased, are not captured at all. [10]
The count covers a range of topics and forms of restricted access. In its analysis of the past five years, however, PEN America identifies books about race and racism, LGBTQ+ people and characters, people and characters of color, and sex as recurring targets. [10]
What is new is that school districts are increasingly using generative AI to review books. Records obtained in Texas show how a chatbot classified Kacen Callender's queer young adult novel "Felix Ever After" as noncompliant. The AI itself conceded that the book is not obscene under the prevailing legal standard. Its justification was that other districts had already removed the book and that it appeared on lists targeting LGBTQ+ content. [10] One ban thus becomes the argument for the next.
Removing such stories changes which life realities young people can get to know. For a queer child, a character in a book can mean recognizing themselves for the very first time. For others, it can be an opportunity to better understand another person's world. That this knowledge can be uncomfortable makes it all the more important to me.
Attention as Fuel
Online, the conflict gains additional reach. A study of roughly 2.7 million posts by U.S. news outlets and members of Congress on Facebook and Twitter found that posts about the political out-group were shared about twice as often as posts about one's own group. [12] The study examines neither these diagrams nor today's recommendation algorithms. But it shows how closely political animosity and attention can be linked. A purple unicorn as the symbol of an alleged threat fits this logic remarkably well.
Criticism Yes, Panic No
Factual criticism of the graphics is, of course, part of the conversation. And it does not only come from the outside. TSER itself has criticized the Genderbread Person for mapping gender on a scale between woman and man, for using the imprecise term "biological sex," and for failing to include people outside the Western gender binary. The Gender Unicorn is explicitly intended as an improvement. [3]
So we can talk about oversimplified scales, misleading categories, and age-appropriate explanations. That includes the question of whether sharing personal information in class remains voluntary. Looking closely helps improve a model. Sweeping accusations of danger, on the other hand, make exactly that conversation impossible.
How Free Is a Society?
For me, this raises a very concrete question: How free is a society if people may tell their stories only as long as those stories do not contradict anyone's worldview?
I want queer people to be able to be visible. I want children to get answers they can understand. I want teachers and librarians to be allowed to explain diversity. And I want us to meet one another as human beings, even when our experiences differ.
That is why the second post in this series begins with exactly these experiences. It explains the questions behind the diagrams and invites readers to find their own lived reality in them.
Yours, Lizbeth
Sources
Jessilyn Lancaster, Charisma News, August 8, 2016: Franklin Graham Compares Transgender Activists to Communists. Includes Franklin Graham's full Facebook post.
Keri D. Ingraham, Discovery Institute, March 23, 2022: How Replacing Biological Sex with Gender Identity Harms Children. First published in National Review. Used here as a source for the opposing argument under examination.
Trans Student Educational Resources, 2015: The Gender Unicorn. Original graphic, definitions, and explanation of the differences from the Genderbread Person.
The White House, January 29, 2025: Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling. Executive order.
Bonnie Young, Brigham Young University, 2017: The Impact of Timing of Pornography Exposure on Mental Health, Life Satisfaction, and Sexual Behavior. Master's thesis.
Andrea Jones and Emilie Kao, The Heritage Foundation, May 15, 2019: Sexual Ideology Indoctrination: The Equality Act's Impact on School Curriculum and Parental Rights. Used here as a source for the political argument.
Defending Education, February 6, 2023: Berkley School District promotes "Genderbread Person" as resource to teach students. Used here as a source for the opposing argument under examination.
Jessica Priest, The Texas Tribune, February 4, 2026: Fired after gender identity lesson, professor sues Texas A&M, arguing her free speech rights were violated.
Duke Law, Campus Speech Tracker: Texas A&M University: Melissa McCoul. Timeline of the case and the policies that followed.
Philomena Polefrone and Kasey Meehan, PEN America, October 5, 2026: A Spotlight on School Book Bans. Banned in the USA: National Findings for the 2025-2026 School Year Show Continued Assault on Books in Public Schools. Report and underlying data (Index of School Book Bans) for the 2025-26 school year.
Texas Public Radio, October 9, 2026: PEN America reports record school book bans, with Texas accounting for over 8,000 titles.
Steve Rathje, Jay J. Van Bavel, and Sander van der Linden, 2021: Out-group animosity drives engagement on social media. PNAS, 118(26), e2024292118.
Comments